Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:59:39 +0300
Subject: Re: CVE's for SSLv2 support

On 2016-03-01 10:33:17 -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:

 > TL;DR: SSLv2 needs to be shot.

Yes, with SSLv3 and TLS 1.0 being the next.

 > Now we have yet another significant SSLv2 problem, DROWN, bad
 > enough in fact that Red Hat has now disabled SSLv2 in OpenSSL
 > by default (already done in NSS/GnuTLS), so from my vendor
 > perspective, we're treating SSLv2 support as a security problem,
 > the solution of which is to remove said support.

The problem is more wide, as it's in the use of insecure algorithms.

 > But more generally, should we look at assigning CVE's for
 > support of SSLv2, much like we would for products supporting
 > DES or other known insecure cryptographic algorithms, hashes,
 > digests and protocols? My personal vote is for yes.

Yes. Including, but not limited to:
1. RSA keys of less than 4096 bits (a minimum of 8192 should be
2. Non-EC discrete logarithm based algos (DSA, old GOST 34.10-94).
2. EC-based algos with keys of less than 256 bits (as for me, I'd
consider 1024 bits to be an absolute minimum: chips are cheap, but
the energy is still expensive).
3. Symmetric ciphers in any mode other than CFB or counter-based.
4. Symmetric ciphers with key size of less than 256 bits.
5. Hash functions of less than 256 bits.

Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

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.