Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Will Google Oppose DRM On HTML5 Video?

mrsbrisby Re:DRM is Necessary (399 comments)

DRM isn't evil, people.

DRM is about removing your ability to use your computer in certain ways, including ways that violate your fifth amendment rights.

DRM is software on your computer that you can't remove, can't inspect, can't trust, that deletes your shit and rats you out to the police if they think you're wrong. It might also give away all of your personal information to the bad guys because the people writing that DRM are just as stupid as any other programmer (Google the Sony BMG Rootkit scandal; especially the bits about all the security holes, if you've got a short memory).

People don't understand this. If you described DRM like a police-supplied GPS put in your car that faxes you a ticket whenever you go one mile-per-hour over, or like a camera in your skull that gives away all your secrets, people would understand how evil DRM is. I would hope that even you would be compelled to admit DRM is evil.

Note, I don't accept any other part of your statement; that it is inevitable, or unavoidable, and etc. It's plain to see that you're wrong: Amazon sells mp3s without DRM and the world didn't come to an end. This is auxiliary to the main point about the morality of DRM.

more than 3 years ago
top

Will Google Oppose DRM On HTML5 Video?

mrsbrisby Re:More Flash? (399 comments)

If we want content providers and sites to use HTML5, we need to provide the tools they need. No matter how much you hate it, DRM is one of them.

I think you've got this exactly backwards. I think Content providers know full well there's a game of chicken here and they're scared shitless. That's why they are poisoning the well asking seemingly innocuous questions like "how will we deliver our video if you don't help us protect our rights?" They know they will fold and offer DRM-free delivery when DRM is impossible- Amazon already sells me DRM-free music, and Justin Bieber is still making great music. I see no reason to believe Netflix won't similarly capitulate.

more than 3 years ago
top

IPhone 3.1 Update Disables Tethering

mrsbrisby Re:Buy a Pre (684 comments)

T-Mobile eventually intentionally put a stop to unsigned clients

Rubbish. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but I use an AT&T-branded Blackberry 8310 with my T-mobile account. T-mobile doesn't have a 8310, so I can assure you that T-mobile not only allows "unsigned clients" (whatever the fuck that means; unlocked? different vendor-id?), but their telephone support helped me do it.

more than 5 years ago
top

How Can I Tell If My Computer Is Part of a Botnet?

mrsbrisby Simple check (491 comments)

Is it running windows?

more than 5 years ago
top

High Performance Linux Kernel Project — LinuxDNA

mrsbrisby Re:dunno exactly (173 comments)

LLVM can (and is) used to subvert the GCC's GPL by making it possible to "compile" C code into closed-source proprietary bytecodes. See "Alchemy" for an example of Adobe being an immoral slimeball.

I'd like to add a slimeball exception to software I've written, preventing Adobe from benefitting, and yet I can't bring myself to be immoral just to combat immorality.

more than 5 years ago
top

High Performance Linux Kernel Project — LinuxDNA

mrsbrisby Re:Portability.. (173 comments)

How is this relevant?

more than 5 years ago
top

High Performance Linux Kernel Project — LinuxDNA

mrsbrisby Re:Portability.. (173 comments)

But you are advocating if I am reading you correctly 'to hell with other compilers use gcc4 it is the rocking best one out there'.

Then work on your reading comprehension. I said no such thing.

I said it isn't obvious that supporting other compilers was a good thing, and that it seemed obvious that actively supporting other compilers (i.e. "more work") had some serious costs that were being underepresented.

Re-read my post. Nowhere did I suggest anyone stop doing what they were doing.

more than 5 years ago
top

High Performance Linux Kernel Project — LinuxDNA

mrsbrisby Re:Portability.. (173 comments)

GCC is a great compiler, but relying on it excessively is a bad thing for the quality of kernel code ... it is simply healthy for the kernel to be compilable across more compilers.

Prove it.

The opposite (relying on GCC is a good thing for code quality) seems obvious to me. The intersection of GCC and ICC is smaller than GCC, so I would assume that targetting something big would afford greater flexibility in expression. As a result, the code would be cleaner, and easier to read.

Targetting only the intersection of ICC and GCC may result in compromises that confuse or complicate certain algorithms.

Some examples from the linked application include:

  • removing static from definitions
  • disabling a lot of branch prediction optimizations
  • statically linking closed-source code
  • tainting the kernel making debugging harder

I cannot fathom why anyone would think these things are "good" or "healthy", and hope you can defend this non-obvious and unsubstantiated claim.

(some of us still remember the gcc->pgcc->egcs->gcc debarcle).

When pgcc showed up, it caused lots of stability problems, and there were major distribution releases that made operating a stable Linux system very difficult: 2.96 sucked badly.

The fact that gcc2 still outperforms gcc4 in a wide variety of scenarios is evidence this wasn't good for technical reasons, and llvm may prove RMS's "political" hesitations right after all.

I'm not saying gcc4 isn't better overall, and I'm not saying we're not better for being here. I'm saying it's not as clear as you suggest.

more than 5 years ago
top

Researcher Says Social Networks Link Terrorists

mrsbrisby Sounds like a great idea! (212 comments)

I for one, welcome any plan that shuts down myspace and facebook...

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

Oh, you actually want to read them? I thought you just wanted me to prove my cred.

I didn't doubt you went to school, or were completing a graduate level program on cryptography.

I doubted your competence, because you missed something I thought was obvious, and I am not a cryptographer.

That said, you mentioned you were working on identity systems, and I am interested in that. I want to say I do not seriously assume that your lack of experience with a particular kind of vulnerability assessment translates to a lack of competence in other things, and I apologize for my statement to the contrary on that subject.

I look forward to reading these papers after the holidays...

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

Implementations are interesting if they use new techniques.

Ehhhh, perhaps in other cases. Compact Javascript and G4 assembly however aren't examples of a cryptographers particular prowess.

The identity schemes are published in FOCS and Asiacrypt.

Well that's helpful.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

Of course. It's just that this is 6-7 orders of magnitude easier than breaking RSA, even against a relatively hard target.

No. It's however hard breaking RSA is plus 6-7 orders of magnitude easier because you still need to break RSA.

Signings shouldn't help the attacker unless your hash is broken... it probably takes a worse break than the current ones against MD5 and SHA1, as well.

That's not true. doi:10.1016/S1007-0214(05)70121-8 for example on weak-key attacks against digital signature systems.

they [the banks] can upgrade much more easily than DNSSEC if RSA-1024 falls.

Sort-of. SSLv2 has been considered obsolete for a long time, but it took new PCI-compliance procedures to really shake it out of a lot of organizations I've worked with.

Upgrading is hard. Saying upgrading HTTPS's RSA-1024 is "easier" than upgrading DNSSEC is patently meaningless: We're not really talking about upgrading, we're talking about replacement.

There are still sites without MX records and still new FTP clients being made. I consider the proponents of DNSSEC and IPV6 similarly incompetent largely because they have spent so little time exploring how to replace our existing crap.

DNSCurve is primarily an exercise in supplanting the existing system; that's what the entire system is built on, *how do we get security*, not how do we build the most secure system, or the best system by any technical measure.

You probably want to avoid them anyway... I'm a grad student so I don't design very practical stuff

Implementations are uninteresting. Where are these identity schemes published?

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

What the hell are you blathering on about?

As is common for crypto protocols, if the RSA key in HTTPS is broken, a man in the middle can mess with the protocol in real time.

No it can't. You still need a way to get the packets to the man in the middle, and a way to get the packets where they don't belong.

DNS, using UDP, offers no such protection.

Secondly, DNSSEC uses the RSA key for a long time, and clients can get lots of signings to launch offline attacks. This attack doesn't work on HTTPS, which uses RSA to only sign/encrypt a session key. It doesn't work on DNSCurve either.

All other things being equal, that answers mmell's question: Why is RSA safer for bank transactions than for DNSSEC?

How the hell can anyone be as fucking numb as you are to these two very simple things and still "be a cryptographer"?

I call shenanigans! If you're actually paid to design cryptosystems, let me know which ones so I can avoid them.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

You're missing the important part:

Funny thing - if RSA1024 is more than enough to secure my bank transactions, why wouldn't I trust it with my DNS queries?

In order to break your bank transactions, someone not only needs to break RSA, they also need to break TCP, and quickly, I might add.

Without TCP, RSA becomes significantly weaker, no longer requiring a billion dollar machine to break very small messages- if you're trying to spoof an IP address, you only need to attack four bytes; a differential attack could special case keys for less still.

TCP is rarely broken; people rarely have their POP3 passwords sniffed, and rarely have those connections hijacked, and in the absence of a lan-based attack, the practical probability becomes almost nil.

Breaking TCP is hard because not only do you have to break the sequence numbers, you also need to break route filters, and possibly more; Part of HTTPS's practical security comes from the fact that breaking HTTP's unintentional security is hard as is- a single short-lived message over a dozen messages, spanning a second, is much harder to break than a RSA-signed DNS packet, which might be valid for days- or even weeks.

LAN-based attacks (hacking a router, spoofing ARP, sniffing wireless, splicing cables) are impractical for most attacks; we generally only see them for extremely targetted attacks. It seems reckless and naive to optimize for this case, when DNSSEC only seems able to do it by making the practical and likely attacks easier.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

And I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking TCP"...

Breaking TCP presently requires guessing sequence numbers reliably or a MITM attack. Both are extremely uncommon outside of LANs.

This isn't true... the best known attacks against RSA are just to factor the modulus.

What isn't true? Breaking RSA is easier than breaking RSA and TCP? (note "also" in my original phrasing)

255-bit ECC is probably slower than 1024-bit RSA for verifies, however.

Not just probably, definitely. That's probably why dnscurve uses Curve25519 (very very fast DH), which is significantly faster than RSA at similar key-strengths.

They can get new ciphers rolled out to browsers, and degrade to RSA for browsers that haven't implemented them. These problems are considerably worse for DNS servers and routers.

On the other hand, with DNSSEC, we're talking about using RSA in a new standard; its performance and size are already problematic at the current strength, and will get cubically worse at greater strengths.

Agreed. We already have excellent information about how long it takes to roll out a new protocol (and stop supporting the old protocol): A-fallback for MX records, Path-MTU discovery problems, ECN, and SSLv2 are things that we still have to deal with today, and MX records were introduced over twenty years ago.

It's evident that new protocols need to be carefully designed to be compatible with existing systems, and that the existing systems will be around for a long time. DNSSEC simply isn't compatible with DNS.

So saying "These problems are considerably worse for DNS servers and routers", I believe is woefully understated. These problems are the most important factor here, on a live, moving, Internet.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:To be fair, /service doesn't do dependency (179 comments)

You can't specify service dependencies in /service;

Dependencies are a red herring: you only know if upstart started the dependee, not whether it is ready to start answering requests. You still need to be robust enough to fail until the dependencies are up.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:So you think RSA is broken? (179 comments)

That seems to be the crux of his arguement against DNSSEC - that RSA is broken (or soon to be broken).

You're wrong. The crux of his argument against DNSSEC is that it's stupid, requires everyone deploy it until anyone can enjoy it, and is incompatible with DNS. It has also wasted valuable space and time on the promise of an "extensible" cryptosystem completely ignoring the fact that deploying a new cryptosystem would require almost as much work as deploying the first one.

Don't you think we should get it right the first time?

You're right - let's pick the shiniest technology on the shelf, we all know that elliptic curve encryption is faster, smaller and uncrackable, right?

Curve is very well understood, and its security is twenty years old at this point. Curve is much faster than RSA, and in something like DNS, slowness can turn into denial-of-service attacks. Futhermore, Curve can guarantee only exponential time solutions exist, where RSA has been broken in sub-exponential time.

DNSSEC is planning to adopt ECC. The question isn't whether Curve is good; it's clearly good, the question is whether it is exhaustively good. The DNSSEC people believe a "pluggable" DNS security system is important, ignoring the fact deploying new cryptosystems is almost as expensive as deploying the first one.

Funny thing - if RSA1024 is more than enough to secure my bank transactions, why wouldn't I trust it with my DNS queries?

Excellent question.

Because not only does someone have to break RSA to break your bank transactions, someone also has to break TCP, which is actually much harder, and requires a monstrous amount of computer power and bandwidth available at sub-msec speeds. With DNS, breaking TCP isn't a requirement, because DNS doesn't use TCP.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:Slow down there (179 comments)

"/service" is unrelated to "/opt".

"/service" is for a reliable init-based service manager. I believe Ubuntu's upstart can finally do all of the things supervise could do almost a decade ago.

"/package" serves a similar purpose for "/opt", except it has well defined semantics, where "/opt" does not.

more than 5 years ago
top

DNSSEC Advances in gTLDs; Bernstein Intros DNSCurve

mrsbrisby Re:Slow down there (179 comments)

I did

You need to work on your reading comprehension then.

DJBDNS supports all RR types, by way of generic RR support. See near the bottom of this page for details.

There is a series of patches that produce friendly syntax for tinydns-data, a single component of DJBDNS. This isn't valuable to large sites who don't source with tinydns-data's built-in format.

more than 5 years ago

Submissions

top

DNSCurve: A realistic solution to DNS

mrsbrisby mrsbrisby writes  |  more than 6 years ago

mrsbrisby writes "The DNSCurve project uses high-speed high-security elliptic-curve cryptography to drastically improve every dimension of DNS security. Unlike DNSSEC, it was designed to actually be deployed on top of the existing mess that the Bind company created, in addition to actually supporting confidentiality and reducing denial-of-service potentials instead of decreasing confidentiality and slowing down your servers and clients.

Additionally, the PDF slides describe an implementation that is easy to deploy and administer.

The announcement on the DJBDNS mailing list doesn't make it clear if it was designed in response to the recent exploits affecting other nameservers."

Link to Original Source

Journals

mrsbrisby has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?