[Cryptography] Fwd: OPENSSL FREAK
Bill Frantz
frantz at pwpconsult.com
Mon Apr 6 14:55:23 EDT 2015
On 4/5/15 at 10:03 AM, huitema at huitema.net (Christian Huitema) wrote:
>>Backward compatibility is just a name for downgrade attacks that
>>haven't cost enough money to stop yet.
>
>Engineering is about tradeoff. That includes balancing
>immediate cost and future risk. Automated kill switches negate
>that. They only make sense if the risk is so high that there is
>no possible balancing. How often have we seen that?
What I find most useful in this discussion is the idea that you
can send an implementation a message and cause it to permanently
turn off an option. If we have an implementation which is
widespread in a corporation, and we wish to turn off an option,
sending it a suitably signed message might be a viable option.
The big questions are:
Who gets to sign the message.
Why didn't we just upgrade the software.
I think there may be useful application areas where there are
good answers to these questions. The IoT seems a likely place.
However, I still think the option of regular software upgrades
is probably a better option for most uses.
Cheers - Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Airline peanut bag: "Produced | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | in a facility that processes | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | peanuts and other nuts." - Duh | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
More information about the cryptography
mailing list