3 ms·

So Mega uses SSL ( RSA 2048) to deliver code that checks if additional resources delivered by SSL (RSA 1024) are identical to the original ones. However they ha

by yk 14y ago

So Mega uses SSL ( RSA 2048) to deliver code that checks if additional resources delivered by SSL (RSA 1024) are identical to the original ones. However they have a flaw in the authentication that checks these resources such that their security can now be broken by breaking the weaker SSL connection. But given the problems with certificates, there are scenarios were breaking SSL, irrespective of the encription used, is not a problem ( if you can install CAs at the target.) I am actually somewhat surprised that the known problems of Mega are so few. I would have expected that their crypto is more broken than this.

jiggy2011 14y ago
From what I understand the risk is not so much that somebody breaks the 1024 bit SSL. It is that the Javascript code (presumably including security critical stuff) is loaded from a third party CDN network. So by nature a CDN network is going to comprise many servers in different locations. Therefor if somebody pwns one of those servers it is risky for anybody who downloads the JS code from that particular CDN server.
- zanny 14y ago
  I was under the impression that even a 128 bit keyspace is prohibitively hard to crack using modern hardware, and that 256 bit would take more computational resources than we can reasonably expect to have available to us for the rest of time. Isn't 1024 bit a bit overkill?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    RSA can be cracked by breaking the public key down into it's prime factors to discover the private key. AES is much more expensive per "try" because the algorithm itself includes many more steps to do a decryption even with the correct key. Not the most detailed answer I grant you, but I don't understand all of the math involved. When you see "256 bit" used in the context of SSL, this is referring to the block cypher used in the actual transmission rather than the RSA key size. So an SSL implementation will probably use a 2048 bit RSA key and a 256 bit AES key. RSA is used to swap the shared secret which is used as the key to the main AES tranfer.
    - zanny 14y ago
      Thanks, I forgot asymmetric keys were easily computed. I'm just thinking random number space brute force against something like SHA2 SSL.
  - srathi 14y ago
    The 128 bit strong key is applicable for symmetric key encryption (e.g. AES, Blowfish etc.). However, even 2048 bit keys are considered relatively insecure for asymmetric key encryption (e.g. RSA).
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    You're confusing symmetric key sizes with asymmetric key sizes. 1024 bits is a huge symmetric key, but a rather small asymmetric key.
  - yk 14y ago
    For AES you have to search the entire keyspace, but for RSA ( and AFAIK any public key scheme) you can actually calculate the private key. The security of public key cryptography relies therefore on one-way functions, which are easy to calculate in one direction but very hard to calculate in the other direction. ( This is used to generate the public and private keys together, but the inverse operation, breaking the encryption, should be prohibitively hard to calculate in practice.) Because of this you can not really compare key length between symmetric and asymmetric encryption schemes.

by yk 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

From what I understand the risk is not so much that somebody breaks the 1024 bit SSL. It is that the Javascript code (presumably including security critical stuff) is loaded from a third party CDN network. So by nature a CDN network is going to comprise many servers in different locations. Therefor if somebody pwns one of those servers it is risky for anybody who downloads the JS code from that particular CDN server.

zanny 14y ago
I was under the impression that even a 128 bit keyspace is prohibitively hard to crack using modern hardware, and that 256 bit would take more computational resources than we can reasonably expect to have available to us for the rest of time. Isn't 1024 bit a bit overkill?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  RSA can be cracked by breaking the public key down into it's prime factors to discover the private key. AES is much more expensive per "try" because the algorithm itself includes many more steps to do a decryption even with the correct key. Not the most detailed answer I grant you, but I don't understand all of the math involved. When you see "256 bit" used in the context of SSL, this is referring to the block cypher used in the actual transmission rather than the RSA key size. So an SSL implementation will probably use a 2048 bit RSA key and a 256 bit AES key. RSA is used to swap the shared secret which is used as the key to the main AES tranfer.
  - zanny 14y ago
    Thanks, I forgot asymmetric keys were easily computed. I'm just thinking random number space brute force against something like SHA2 SSL.
- srathi 14y ago
  The 128 bit strong key is applicable for symmetric key encryption (e.g. AES, Blowfish etc.). However, even 2048 bit keys are considered relatively insecure for asymmetric key encryption (e.g. RSA).
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  You're confusing symmetric key sizes with asymmetric key sizes. 1024 bits is a huge symmetric key, but a rather small asymmetric key.
- yk 14y ago
  For AES you have to search the entire keyspace, but for RSA ( and AFAIK any public key scheme) you can actually calculate the private key. The security of public key cryptography relies therefore on one-way functions, which are easy to calculate in one direction but very hard to calculate in the other direction. ( This is used to generate the public and private keys together, but the inverse operation, breaking the encryption, should be prohibitively hard to calculate in practice.) Because of this you can not really compare key length between symmetric and asymmetric encryption schemes.