3 ms·
There aren't any new findings here. It's merely a rehash of the Weak DH attack (by the same researchers) that was made public in May of this year: https://weak
by agwa 11y ago
There aren't any new findings here. It's merely a rehash of the Weak DH attack (by the same researchers) that was made public in May of this year: https://weakdh.org/ https://weakdh.org/
Still, it's a good reminder that you should not be using 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman.
- swolchok 11y ago> It's merely a rehash of the Weak DH attack that was made public in May of this year Just to clarify (because I was confused when I read your comment), the weak DH attack was made public by the same people who wrote this post and the academic paper attached to it. It looks like the post and the paper are part of the same "release". Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was a grad student of Professor Halderman's several years ago.
- agwa 11y agoIndeed. I wasn't implying that the blog post authors were copycats. I've updated my comment to hopefully avoid confusion.
- sohkamyung 11y agoTo rehash is to: "To bring forth again in another form without significant alteration". If I'm not mistaken, they gave a presentation in May and have now published a full technical paper. Perhaps rehash is too harsh a word to apply to a paper that contains more details than given in the slides.
- agwa 11y agoThey published a technical report in May that is almost identical to the paper submitted to the conference. No criticism of the authors is intended (to the contrary, their findings are amazing and very important). But readers need to know this isn't a new attack before they go off panicking.
- sohkamyung 11y agoUnderstood. I haven't been keeping up with Security News so I wasn't aware, until now, about the presentation they gave in May.