Re:Passive SSH Key Compromise via Lattices [pdf]
by upofadown on Monday November 06, 2023 @12:48PM
(#38165925)
The attack I linked to discussed completely theoretical attacks. No examples were provided. The attack we are commenting on does provide an example.
In context it it obvious that I was addressing the contention that the paper I linked to had something to do with an implementation error.
Re:Passive SSH Key Compromise via Lattices [pdf]
by tptacek on Monday November 06, 2023 @02:23PM
(#38167468)
Yes, examples of the attack you dismissed. And you cited it as evidence on this thread about that attack. It's just very funny, is all.
Re:Passive SSH Key Compromise via Lattices [pdf]
by upofadown on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:27AM
(#38178813)
OK, thanks. I have updated the article to remove the term "theoretical" and have added an appropriate footnote that references the new work.
Re:Passive SSH Key Compromise via Lattices [pdf]
by tptacek on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @03:25PM
(#38182294)
This is still wrong! Leaving aside that hardware faults are themselves implementation pitfalls for RSA, the fundamental failure here is a software implementation flaw. You really need to understand these attacks before you supply guidance about them.
Further: the article you linked to describes the attack we are talking about right now on this thread, a fully remote fault attack that harvested keys off random SSH servers on the Internet, as "a completely theoretical hardware attack". (Narrator: it was not; further, this is that "completely theoretical" attack in its most difficult setting.)