[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1376326946.2970.33.camel@neutron.trustmatta.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:02:26 +0100
From: Florent Daigniere <florent.daigniere@...stmatta.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: pending Bitcoin/Android CVE assignments
On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 12:41 -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> https://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/source/detail?name=bitcoinj-0.10&r=04d2044880d88107ee4a939a516fb4be4cedeaf9#
That looks like the wrong fix to me. Surely if the assumption is that
the application will be used on a large number of heterogeneous embedded
devices (with inconsistent software stacks), where random sources are
unsuitable for cryptographic usage, the solution should not involve
them.
Why can't bincoin use deterministic signatures again?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979
Florent
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
