full-disclosure - Re: Creating a rogue CA certificate

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20081231180845.E4E8D118040@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:08:45 -0500
From: "Elazar Broad" <elazar@...hmail.com>
To: valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Creating a rogue CA certificate

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<snip>
is more cost effective
</snip>

should have been is *it

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:57:52 -0500 Elazar Broad
<elazar@...hmail.com> wrote:
>That's true, keeping up with security is not cheap nor easy.
>Tradeoff's are tradeoff's, the question is, when it comes down to
>the $$$, is more cost effective to be proactive vs reactive in
>this
>case. Time will tell...
>
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:42:47 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:13:07 EST, Elazar Broad said:
>>> And they should have listened then, it was only a matter of
>time
>>> before someone fleshed out a practical attack, and that time is
>>> now. Then again, I am sure there some ATM's out there still
>>using
>>> DES. How many time's do we need to prove Moore's law...
>>
>>Playing devil's advocate for a moment...
>>
>>And perhaps they *were* listening, but realized that security is
>>about
>>tradeoffs, and they balanced the cost of doing the upgrade back
>>then
>>against the chances that a team as technically and budget-wise
>>prepared
>>as this one, *and with nefarious intent*, would do something
>>significantly
>>drastic enough to dent their revenue stream.
>>
>>Read section 5.2 of the hashclash/rogue-ca paper.  The victim CA
>>is churning
>>out an average of 1,000 certs in 3 days, let's say at $12 per.
>>That's some
>>$600K per year for just the weekends, not counting the Mon-Thurs
>>span which
>>is probably even higher (and why they targeted a weekend).  So
>$2M
>>per year
>>or more.
>>
>>Who wants to place a bet that said CA will be selling *the same
>>number*
>>of certs every week, meaning they had *no* economic loss due to
>>this hack,
>>because their customers won't actually *see* the news article and
>>give them
>>a bad feeling about their CA?  And with no actual loss, why spend
>>the money
>>to implement the change?
>>
>>Hint: It *isn't* just a matter of changing one line in a script
>to
>>say
>>'sha1' instead of 'md5' - you *also* need to go back and look at
>>all the
>>certs you've issued already and figure out if they've been
>>tweaked...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 3.0
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify

wpwEAQECAAYFAklbtS0ACgkQi04xwClgpZjT2QP/bIcnzHFZ35GMhXf1W+nptPJWHQ3W
zGejCeCWAKMGpPSy/aPP3AkMDgxxJNBduPyelS35gfYvu0oiBSbThQ0fOYMHUngJhuex
sydNqPhxYhKTfMEcOQLLU1x51Qr73wHyLHIlOcQh6fd0ZceTmOdd3ml9qp59Sq1JXTxr
Qo8J9Hg=
=Xxk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Lower rates for Veterans. Click for VA loan information.
 http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/PnY6qxtVmScGZLWiBqwqAGkauzQUd9lMK0RPfsKCNYRb5o8OmdO9i/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/