2 ms·

But elliptic curve support and this vulnerability weren't introduced until 2017, and the commit log (https://git.tartarus.org/?p=simon/putty.git;a=commitdiff;h=

But elliptic curve support and this vulnerability weren't introduced until 2017, and the commit log (https://git.tartarus.org/?p=simon/putty.git;a=commitdiff;h=c193fe9848f50a88a4089aac647fecc31ae96d27 https://git.tartarus.org/?p=simon/putty.git;a=commitdiff;h=c...) makes it clear the developer was aware of the RFC but chose not to upgrade the 2001 code. Doing so prior to the elliptic curve support being added would have completely avoided this vulnerability.

hobbified 3y ago
In a parallel universe, they switched to RFC6979 in 2013, but the implementation had a bug that wasn't detected for years, allowing compromise of lots of keys. In that parallel universe, HN is criticizing them for following fashion instead of just leaving an already-proven piece of crypto code in place. It's an unfortunate bug, an unfortunate oversight, but I think they made a perfectly reasonable choice at the time.