| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:47:36 -0500 From: Larry Seltzer <larry@...ryseltzer.com> To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC Instead of an overt back-door, is it possible that Theo's old friend (;)) is referring to exploitable vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities may or may not have been found in the interim and fixed, but not recognized as backdoors. As you said, it's impossible to prove a negative (prove to me that you haven't read Moby Dick), but the scenario above sounds kind of reasonable to me. -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:50 PM To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC There are several problems with this story that seem to have been overlooked. First, if someone was able to alter the crypto source code 10 years ago, you have to assume that in the following 10 years not one person reviewing or editing that code would have noticed a thing. So, the person who did the altering has to be smarter than every other crypto guy who worked on the code. Smart enough that nobody would even notice what he did and smart enough that nothing would be noticed operationally. Not one entity, with all the security personnel those entities employed, would have ever noticed or even inadvertently stumbled across any traffic going to an unexpected place. Second, no one editing the crypto code after the alteration would have ever made a single change to the code that would affect the alteration in an adverse way, either rendering it inoperable or causing it to generate traffic that would be unexpected and noticed by watchful eyes. Now we're talking a genius on the level of Einstein, at least. Of all the code in use, crypto is probably the most scrutinized and is scrutinized by the smartest guys. All of whom were apparently too dumb to notice *anything* unusual in the code at all, if this story is to be believed. And he was able to alter it in a way that made it completely resistant to any future changes in the code. Finally, the guy who sent Theo the email obviously lied, or else there's a third Scott Lowe that hasn't yet been unearthed. It's impossible to prove a negative. So, if you want to hurt or get back at Theo for some reason, the easiest way to do it is claim there's a supersekrit backdoor in the code that no one has noticed for ten years. Now Theo gets to go on a wild goose chase that has no resolution, because you cannot prove there is no backdoor. The best you can do is claim to have thoroughly audited the code and not found one. Conspiracy theorists thrive on claims that can never be disproven. A hundred years from now, people will still be whispering that there's a backdoor in the crypto supplied by OpenBSD. Just like they claim that Oswald didn't act alone and the government blew up the twin towers. Common sense and the preponderance of the evidence tell you otherwise, but all that is ignored in favor of the grand theory that big brother is watching. Rational people don't fall for this stuff. Should the code be audited? Of course! Auditing is always useful and often productive. Should we assume the worst? Not without better evidence than what we have before us now. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ 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