Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The bar mitzvah attack is an attack on the SSL/TLS protocols that exploits the use of the RC4 cipher with weak keys for that cipher. [1] [2] While this affects only the first hundred or so bytes of only the very small fraction of connections that happen to use weak keys, it allows significant compromise of user security, for example by allowing the interception of password information [2 ...
Freund noticed that SSH connections were generating an unexpectedly high amount of CPU usage as well as causing errors in Valgrind, [9] a memory debugging tool. [10] Freund reported his finding to Openwall Project 's open source security mailing list, [ 9 ] which brought it to the attention of various software vendors. [ 10 ]
This caused a massive worldwide regeneration of keys, and despite all attention the issue got, it could be assumed many of these old keys are still in use. Key types affected include SSH keys, OpenVPN keys, DNSSEC keys, key material for use in X.509 certificates and session keys used in SSL/TLS connections. Keys generated with GnuPG or GNUTLS ...
In this case, the responder's certificate (the one that is used to sign the response) must be issued by the issuer of the certificate in question, and must include a certain extension that marks it as an OCSP signing authority (more precisely, an extended key usage extension with the OID {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1 ...
In computer network security, session fixation attacks attempt to exploit the vulnerability of a system that allows one person to fixate (find or set) another person's session identifier. Most session fixation attacks are web based, and most rely on session identifiers being accepted from URLs ( query string ) or POST data.
A Lucky Thirteen attack is a cryptographic timing attack against implementations of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol that use the CBC mode of operation, first reported in February 2013 by its developers Nadhem J. AlFardan and Kenny Paterson of the Information Security Group at Royal Holloway, University of London. [1] [2]
It resulted from improper input validation (due to a missing bounds check) in the implementation of the TLS heartbeat extension. [5] Thus, the bug's name derived from heartbeat. [6] The vulnerability was classified as a buffer over-read, [7] a situation where more data can be read than should be allowed. [8]
CRL for a revoked cert of Verisign CA. There are two different states of revocation defined in RFC 5280: Revoked A certificate is irreversibly revoked if, for example, it is discovered that the certificate authority (CA) had improperly issued a certificate, or if a private-key is thought to have been compromised.