[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550F2754.5060704@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:34:28 +0300
From: Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE for Kali Linux
On 2015-03-22 20:23, Solar Designer wrote:
> https does offer a security aspect that signatures don't: it hides from
> some observers which exact software is being downloaded (and maybe that
> it's a software download at all). It doesn't do that perfectly because
> the target address and transfer timings and sizes may be revealing, but
> I do acknowledge there's some subtle improvement over http here. I just
> think this is far less important than ensuring authenticity of the
> software. So let's demand signatures and signature verification first,
> and let's not be distracted by http vs. https.
There are some attacks even if you verify signatures, e.g. serving old,
known-vulnerable versions. HTTPS can help here (until signatures start
to be widely accompanied by expiring timestamps or something).
--
Alexander Cherepanov
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.
