Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion
From: don bailey <don.bailey () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:02:00 -0600

Apples and oranges.  *Attacks* will never go away, but dnssec, if fully 
implemented, would render Dan's attack moot.  Unless you've factored 256 
bit RSA keys, in which case you should be making six figures.

Maybe I wasn't being clear, Mr. Paul Schmehl. The static port
vulnerability allows for the effective attack against the xid
name space. So, there are really two attacks here. One is based
on the fact that there are static ports, the other is based on
the small number of bits used. Two problems. Compounded together.
Into one attack.

If there was a weakness in a particular implementation of DNSSEC
that was made more feasible by the fact that people still used
static ports, we would still be having a large hullabaloo about
"attack, attack!!!".

So, Mr. Paul Schmehl, it is not "apples and oranges". It is simply
a different way of thinking.

And how do you know I don't already make six figures? Don't you
have a Red Hat image to install on a workstation somewhere?


Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]