| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2a66a350812301619u61646e49m829e110c55d199c0@mail.gmail.com> 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