[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenID/Debian PRNG/DNS Cache poisoning advisory
[Sorry for duplicates, but I got multiple requests for a non-HTML
version, and I didn't want to fork the thread. Also sorry for
initially sending HTML; I didn't realize it was so abhorrent these
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Dan Kaminsky <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It's easy to compute all the public keys that will be generated
>> by the broken PRNG. The clients could embed that list and refuse
>> to accept any certificate containing one of them. So, this
>> is distinct from CRLs in that it doesn't require knowing which servers have which cert...
> Funnily enough I was just working on this -- and found that we'd end up adding a couple megabytes to every browser. #DEFINE NONSTARTER. I am curious about the feasibility of a large bloom filter that fails back to online checking though. This has side effects but perhaps they can be made statistically very unlikely, without blowing out the size of a browser.
Using this Bloom filter calculator:
plus the fact that there are 32,768 weak keys for every key type &
size, I get various sizes of necessary Bloom filter, based on how many
key type / sizes you want to check and various false positive rates:
* 3 key types/sizes with 1e-6 false positive rate: 2826759 bits = 353 KB
* 3 key types/sizes with 1e-9 false positive rate: 4240139 bits = 530 KB
* 7 key types/sizes with 1e-6 false positive rate: 6595771 bits = 824 KB
* 7 key types/sizes with 1e-9 false positive rate: 9893657 bits = 1237 KB
I presume that the first 3 & first 7 key type/sizes in this list
http://metasploit.com/users/hdm/tools/debian-openssl/ are the best to
incorporate into the filter.
Is there any chance it would be feasible to get a list of all the weak
keys that were actually certified by browser-installed CAs, or those
weak certificates? Presumably, this list would be much smaller and
would be more effectively distributed in Bloom filter form.