4 ms·

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c121 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c121 They're not removing the stupid tmp-walker, j

by blasdel 17y ago

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c121 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c121 They're not removing the stupid tmp-walker, just keeping it from being called on XP (most of the time, maybe?) They seem to be deluded that it's super important to get more entropy than everyone else (TCP, IE, etc.) on Win2k and WinCE.

drhowarddrfine 17y ago
Here's a nickel, kid. Get a real computer.
rbanffy 17y ago
Actually they are keeping it as a plan-B for older releases of Windows that can't generate good random numbers. Keep in mind there is no IE 7 or 8 for Win2K. They should be praised for supporting those users.
- blasdel 17y ago
  If the default entropy source on those platforms was actually inadequate in any way, it would have the everliving fuck exploited out of it, at levels far below their product. Nobody gives a shit about HTTPS seed quality if the entire TCP stack is compromised! They should be excoriated for delivering a massive (and pointless) performance regression to their users with the slowest computers. Every time they pull shit like this, it just means that fewer users will upgrade, not just now but in the future.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    It's actually the opposite; you use TLS exactly because you're not supposed to trust the TCP stack. But your basic point holds. There's lots of Win2k deployed in sensitive production locations, and if they didn't have secure random numbers, we'd have bigger problems than Firefox.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - swolchok 17y ago
      I thought I used TLS because I didn't want my sensitive data going over the wire in plaintext.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      "we'd have bigger problems than Firefox" It's not like win2K is super-secure... Seriously, it _really_ scares me when I see medical equipment running any Windows (not only win2k or earlier) being networked in hospitals.

by blasdel 17y ago

drhowarddrfine 17y ago

Here's a nickel, kid. Get a real computer.

rbanffy 17y ago

Actually they are keeping it as a plan-B for older releases of Windows that can't generate good random numbers. Keep in mind there is no IE 7 or 8 for Win2K. They should be praised for supporting those users.

blasdel 17y ago
If the default entropy source on those platforms was actually inadequate in any way, it would have the everliving fuck exploited out of it, at levels far below their product. Nobody gives a shit about HTTPS seed quality if the entire TCP stack is compromised! They should be excoriated for delivering a massive (and pointless) performance regression to their users with the slowest computers. Every time they pull shit like this, it just means that fewer users will upgrade, not just now but in the future.
- tptacek 17y ago
  It's actually the opposite; you use TLS exactly because you're not supposed to trust the TCP stack. But your basic point holds. There's lots of Win2k deployed in sensitive production locations, and if they didn't have secure random numbers, we'd have bigger problems than Firefox.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - swolchok 17y ago
    I thought I used TLS because I didn't want my sensitive data going over the wire in plaintext.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    "we'd have bigger problems than Firefox" It's not like win2K is super-secure... Seriously, it _really_ scares me when I see medical equipment running any Windows (not only win2k or earlier) being networked in hospitals.