full-disclosure - Re: FD / lists.grok.org

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: <20090105212952.GJ16795@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:29:52 -0800
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: FD / lists.grok.org - bad SSL cert

> > How is that better, really?  Run tcpdump or ettercap...  Either of the
> > tools are off the shelf.
> 
> And if the site is using a self-signed cert, how does a 3rd party tcpdump
> manage to get a *decrypted* datastream?  Yes, you can still do traffic analysis
> on the "X talked to Y with packet sizes A, B, and C" level, but you can't
> look at the data.


You're missing the point of my comment:

  Plaintext communication => use tcpdump

  Encrypted without a cert => use ettercap (or something similar)


Is there really a non-constant difference in difficulty?

tim

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