Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not prime”

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by baby on Monday February 01, 2016 @03:15PM (#11015042)

if it's not an easy factorization => it will be hard. According to recent results we believe state-sized adversary should be able to do it. If you're threat model is against criminals, then you might be OK.

EDIT: if 1024bits factorization is easy in general, you can say goodbye to every 1024bits RSA modulus. My first statement doesn't mean it can never be easy, it means that if you try and factor it the easy way and it doesn't work... you are in for a lot of work and research.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by dzdt on Monday February 01, 2016 @03:40PM (#11015225)

Well, it isn't known who provided the number in the first place. Whoever that unknown party is presumably knows the factorization they used to construct p. This could be a state, or could be a criminal enterprise. Better not to trust it!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by baby on Monday February 01, 2016 @03:58PM (#11015378)

Oh right. I guess I forgot this part 8)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by xnyhps on Monday February 01, 2016 @03:33PM (#11015158)

Testing for 2 seconds already found the prime factors 271 and 13597. It will probably not be hard.

Edit: To add some more information, p / (271 * 13597) is still not prime, however, the library I was using didn't find any new factors in 30 minutes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by qwerty1793 on Monday February 01, 2016 @10:29PM (#11017503)

There are no other factors less than 2^32. You can see my other comment for details on verifying this.

[ Parent | on HN ]