News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias. Parent comment

Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by chasil on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:39PM (#40045273)
It appears that some of this was designed in the late 90s/early aughts, when Windows didn't have a cryptographically-secure random number generator.

PuTTY carries its own formats from this time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by gruez on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:48PM (#40045371)
You don't need a CSPRNG to do SHA512, which their solution already incorporates.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by chasil on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:55PM (#40045451)
This is the text from the original article.

"For this reason, since PuTTY was developed on Windows before it had any cryptographic random number generator at all, PuTTY has always generated its k using a deterministic method, avoiding the need for random numbers at all."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by gruez on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:57PM (#40045477)
Both my proposed naive method and the PuTTY implementation are deterministic. The only difference is how the primitives (eg. SHA-512) are combined.
[ Parent | on HN ]