full-disclosure - My response to both the analysis of CIPE by Gutmann, Slashdot and the response by the CIPE list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20030925090117.GA6166@deneb.enyo.de>
From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer)
Subject: My response to both the analysis of CIPE by Gutmann, Slashdot and the response by the CIPE list

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 03:43:06AM +0200, Jake Appelbaum wrote:

> After reading Gutmann's short but to the point email a few points that
> he made seemed obvious. Some of the flaws were not so obvious. CIPE
> seemed to have some very simple flaws and some of the fixes were easy to
> implement.

The CRC flaw is not easy to correct.

> I found a some of it delivered in such a manner that would upset people
> who were highly vested in the projects he was criticizing. Perhaps it was
> the comment that I also found to be so amusing, something to do with
> sound waves. Amusing as it may be, it's still quite harsh.

Especially as some of the flaws (the replay attacks) are actually
documented in the manual.

> I then read through the posts on Slashdot that declared CIPE to be
> dead. I found these to be really immature and silly considering the
> nature of F/OSS.

Maybe it's not dead, but I'd rather not use security software which is
unmaintained.  (Several people tried to reach Olaf and failed.)