News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by janmo on Monday April 15, 2024 @10:19PM (#40047766)
Doesn't make sense to me as well, even when fully random after 30,000 signatures you would get around 60 signatures where the nonce starts with nine zero bits.

I suspect there must be something else at play here.

EDIT: the nonce is PRIVATE, so the scenario I described would not work because we wouldn't know for which of the 30k signatures the nonce starts with 9 zero bits. Makes sense now.

Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by gs17 on Monday April 15, 2024 @10:45PM (#40047899)
If I'm understanding correctly, the difference is between knowing you have 60 and having to try (30000!/(60! * (30000 - 60)!) combinations and seeing if they worked, which is quite a few.
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by cchance on Monday April 15, 2024 @11:37PM (#40048129)
I mean the write up indicates you'd need access to the server side, or the pageant with the private key loaded, which both seem to be like... umm... at that point don't we have bigger issues?
Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by Khoth on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @01:04AM (#40048529)
Not sure about the pageant part, but it's a major problem when connecting to a compromised server leaks the client's private key.

(For example, if an attacker has compromised server A and you connect to it, they can now use your key to connect to server B which you also use)

Re:PuTTY vulnerability vuln-p521-bias by leni536 on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @03:10AM (#40049143)
Now I feel better for never using the same key for different servers.