Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias
by tptacek on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:50PM
(#40045392)
Assuming I'm reading it right, this is an absolutely classic vulnerability, something people who study cryptographic vulnerability research would instinctually check for, so what's taken so long is probably for anyone to bother evaluating the P-521 implementation in PuTTY.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias
by some_furry on Monday April 15, 2024 @05:52PM
(#40046103)
Correct. Every time I've seen P-521 in a professional setting, it is the very first thing I check for.
How often do people get it wrong? It doesn't seem particularly difficult to generate 521 random bits.
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias
by some_furry on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @09:48AM
(#40051810)
This is the first time it's ever actually happened. I'm just painfully aware of missing developer ergonomics and ways to shoot oneself in the foot.
It was found a bunch a decade or so ago. PuTTY is just a more obscure codebase.
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias
by some_furry on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @12:10PM
(#40053806)
Sorry, I should've been clearer: all the times I've checked for this specific bug, I did not find it in the code I was looking at. All the times I looked for it was the series of events I was reflecting on.
That's what I meant by "the first time it's happened". I shouldn't write comments before my first cup of coffee.
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias
by MaxBarraclough on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @09:42AM
(#40051743)
The classic FOSS tragedy of the commons: we'd all benefit from an in-depth security review of the PuTTY codebase, but no one will fund it.