"Noel L Yap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> IMHO, there should be some effort to try to prevent this sort of attack.  The
> gist of the attack is that private keys can be recovered by reading a process's
> memory.  I haven't really researched the preventive measures.

The goal of lsh and most other tools for secure transport of data is
to isolate the vulnerabilities to the endpoints. If the endpoints are
secure, the system is secure, no matter what the systems in between
looks like.

On the other hand, if the attacker gets control over one of the end
points (in this case, the server), your basically screwed, and tools
like lsh and secure web-servers can't do much about that.

Sure, you can do things like storing private keys on a smartcard or
some other system. That would reduce the damages from a successful
network attack (i.e. the private key gets more difficult to steal from
an attacker that has broken into your system with root privileges but
doesn't have any physical access). On the other hand, an attacker that
has gained root access to the server can most likely still use the
smartcard to create arbitrary signatures, and he can steal or modify
data, install trojans, or other arbitrarily evil stuff, so its still a
*very* serious security problem.

See Bruce Schneier's latest crypto-gram for some more flaming on this
nCipher marketing.

I also feel that this issue is a little off topic for the psst list
(although my opinion is not in any way authoritative; this is Martin's
list).

There's really no getting around the fact that you *must* keep the
endpoints secure.

/Niels

Reply via email to