[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180831121802.4mq7cag23e4fkzoz@raspberrypi>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:18:03 +0000
From: vines@...eup.net
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Travis CI MITM RCE
>
> I agree about the "key ID" part, but not about the "fingerprint" part.
> Pinning a cryptographic hash over a public key isn't a security
> antipattern by any strech of the imagination. Sure, you could argue that
> the SHA-1 used by GPG isn't state-of-the-art anymore, but we're not
> talking about collision attacks, but second preimage attacks. Far worse
> for the attacker.
>
True, yes, harder to brute-force a identical private key, than a key with an identical fingerprint.
However, if someone hadn't considered the possibility of a SHA1 collision attack, and a signature verification fails, despite the fingerprint they see matching, what % of GPG users would skip signature verification?
Perhaps due to confusion/self-doubt/inexperience/other.
Admittedly, this could be stepping into the realm of social engineering.
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.
