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 cperciva on Monday February 01, 2016 @05:23PM (#11016065)

Apples and oranges. When we talk about 128-bit security, we mean that it takes ~2^128 work to break it; not that there's a 2^-128 chance that it is broken.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by marshray on Monday February 01, 2016 @06:11PM (#11016414)

Most protocols do allow the attacker to choose how many times the defender must win at some game of probability.

If the defender is somehow put in a situation to generate 2^80 primes, then he's in trouble.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by cperciva on Monday February 01, 2016 @06:22PM (#11016479)

Sure, I'd aim for a higher security level in a "attacker can keep asking for new primes until we screw up" scenario.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Socat: “the hard coded 1024 bit DH p parameter was not pr... by wtbob on Monday February 01, 2016 @08:10PM (#11017044)

> When we talk about 128-bit security, we mean that it takes ~2^128 work to break it; not that there's a 2^-128 chance that it is broken.

But it also implies that e.g. the attacker has a 2^-128 chance of randomly guessing a key.

[ Parent | on HN ]