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? D _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re DNS spoofing issue discussion Mary and Glenn Everhart (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion don bailey (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion Paul Schmehl (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion don bailey (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion Paul Schmehl (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion don bailey (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion Paul Schmehl (Jul 31)
- Re: Re DNS spoofing issue discussion don bailey (Jul 31)