<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
Subject: Re: My response to both the analysis of CIPE by Gutmann, Slashdotand the response by the CIPE list
From: "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:53:41 -0500
In-reply-to: <1064495379.428.21.camel@eris>
Organization: Omnifarious Software
References: <1064495379.428.21.camel@eris>

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 08:09, Jake Appelbaum wrote:
> The fact that Olaf hasn't replied is a huge problem for my assurances
> that this project is on track to fix these problems, I know that I am
> not alone [13]. What is more shocking to me is the lack of understanding
> about a protocol/security method being broken. It seems that many people
> doing small tests of their own [14] find it to be acceptable because it
> will fit their clients needs. Their own greed and the ease of setup
> being the bottom line. 

This actually really bothers me too.  For this kind of project, and this
level of critique, the maintainer should respond to within 8-16 hours. 
He should've responded to Peter Gutman when Peter first emailed him.  If
he's no longer interested in being that involved in the project, he
should hand maintership of it to someone else.  A security sensitive
project like this can't afford a maintainer who doesn't have time to pay
close attention to security issues.

I also strongly agree with your other points.  Peter Gutmann's analysis
is unecessarily incendiary (thus one is tempted to dismiss it
out-of-hand), and has some minor flaws, but the vulnerabilities he
exposes are real, and should be addressed.

> Other people seem just fine with CIPE being "less than a bank vault" and
> I find this just amazing [15]. This is a project that claims the highest
> in industry stands. These are people giving away secure systems. That
> type of response is insane. One poster even seemed happy with these
> statements against CIPE and bragged of it's use in "every sector you can
> imagine" [16].

Not only that, but the comparison is seriously flawed anyway.  A
comparison to a bank vault is not a valid comparison for an Internet
protocol.  Internet protocols must all be as secure as we know how to
make them because of the quick dissemination of cracking tools the
Internet makes possible.   A few thousand minor vulnerable hosts on the
Internet is almost as bad as one really important vulnerable host.

Have fun (if at all possible),
--
There's an excellent C/C++/Python/Unix/Linux programmer with a wide
range of other experience and system admin skills who needs work.
Namely, me. http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/resume.html
-- Eric Hopper <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]