Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:55:06 -0400
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>
To: Kurt Seifried <>, oss-security <>
Subject: Re: Prime example of a can of worms

On Thu 2015-10-22 01:09:16 -0400, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> Having a large pool of known good primes would be easier for them to use I
> suspect. Sadly we can't let perfect be the enemy of the good, or in this
> case the "not completely terrible".

a large pool of known-good primes doesn't help so much, particularly for
the embedded case -- peers that are offered a group need to be able to
easily verify that the group is strong.  embedded devices simply aren't
going to carry around a large list of well-vetted primes of short
length, but we could *maybe* convince them to carry around a shorter
list of well-vetted strong primes.

I'd rather see us increase the security margin for a set of well-vetted
standard groups than ask people to make implementations that can't
determine whether they're in a reasonable group or not.


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.