Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-11 Thread micah
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes: micah micah at riseup.net writes: Encouraging custom DH groups is not a good idea, as this opens up the triple handshake attack possibility[0]. 0. https://www.secure-resumption.com/ (search for Initial DHE Handshake) -- details an attack where a

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-11 Thread Thorsten Glaser
micah dixit: (as I have been doing for a while) that even the DH part of the handshake be protected by the server (and, optionally, client) certificate. This doesn't mean anything, as far as I can tell. Unless you mean by Encrypted, actually, is what I mean. bye, //mirabilos -- Wish I had

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-09 Thread Thorsten Glaser
micah micah at riseup.net writes: Encouraging custom DH groups is not a good idea, as this opens up the triple handshake attack possibility[0]. 0. https://www.secure-resumption.com/ (search for Initial DHE Handshake) -- details an attack where a server can send custom groups Interesting,

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-08 Thread micah
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:00:00AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Stefan Fritsch sf at sfritsch.de writes: And custom DH groups are not that easy to handle in an automated way. Right. I'm currently suggesting each site to generate one and roll that out

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-08 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:00:00AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Stefan Fritsch sf at sfritsch.de writes: And custom DH groups are not that easy to handle in an automated way. Right. I'm currently suggesting each site to generate one and roll that out for the whole site (e.g. company,

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-08 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Stefan Fritsch sf at sfritsch.de writes: And custom DH groups are not that easy to handle in an automated way. Right. I’m currently suggesting each “site” to generate one and roll that out for the whole “site” (e.g. company, project). For example on a cubietruck (Cortex A7), generation of a

Re: [PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-06 Thread Stefan Fritsch
On Wednesday 03 June 2015 16:07:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote: I’ve just done so: both the “precomputed, up to 8192 bits” part (which already makes Qualys not cap the grade to B, but is not the proper fix, because, in the end, people will just pregenerate for the Debian-shipped group too) and the

[PATCH] Re: Logjam mitigation for Wheezy?

2015-06-03 Thread Thorsten Glaser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA384 On Wed, 20 May 2015, Stefan Fritsch wrote: Apache 2.4 in jessie uses precomputed DH params that are at least as long as the RSA key size (up to 8192 bits). This gives 2048 bit DH […] I am planning to backport these improvements to apache 2.2