On 1 November 2012 18:38, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Again, does it appear so subtle after it has been discovered?
Well, I find I have to remind myself how it works. So ... yeah. Also, I assumed Bliechanbacher was the exponent 3 thing, which was also pretty subtle. > > Would the flaw have been discovered sooner if there was not so much dead > code? I don't think dead code had any influence on either of these. > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote: >> >> On 1 November 2012 18:00, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 11/01/2012 05:22 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> Having worked in Web security over 20 years now, I have still to see a >> >> case >> >> where a system was breached because of a really subtle design flaw. >> > >> > Bleichenbacher? >> >> TLS renegotiation? >> >> > >> > S. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > therightkey mailing list >> > therightkey@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey > > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list therightkey@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
