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]
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:19:31 -0800
From: chort <chort0@...il.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Creating a rogue CA certificate

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:

> And if you don't have a room full of PS3s, the FAQ at the bottom helpfully
> tells you that the attack needed the equivalent of 32 CPU-years inside a 3-day
> window, which tells you a 4,000 node botnet could probably work (again, outside
> the feature list for metasploit).  Presumably, a larger botnet would allow
> a BFI attack that lacked the "crucial improvements".
>

The viability of that approach depends on how much the code depends on
the systems being clustered together over low-latency interconnects.
4000 machines spread all across the internet separated by 300ms of
latency is not the same thing as 4000 machines in the same room
running a cluster OS.

Yes, given enough machines you could do the computations even with
each system acting fairly autonomously, but it could require a
drastically different approach.  As a disclaimer, I do not know the
details of how the PlayStation Lab was utilized for this particular
task, so they may well have been used as discrete units.


-- 
chort

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists