[Dailydave] The audacity of thinking you're not owned

[Halvar Flake]

Hey all,

> Supplemental note to Halvar & everybody else who has said, in effect, "this
> is why SSL was invented" -- there's more to internet security than the
route
> from your computer to your online bank.  Have you thought about what this
> bug implies for NTLM?  Or every virgin OS installation on the planet?  Or
> Google's entire business model?

just to clarify: I did not say this bug wasn't relevant, and I don't
want my blog post to be construed
in that manner. What I did say was:

1. The average user always has to assume that his GW is owned, hence
nothing changes for him. Specifically:
    he does not need to worry more than usual. Check SSL certificates,
check host fingerprints. Don't use plaintext
    protocols.
2. For those providing DNS services, it is clearly preferrable to patch.
A DNS system without trivial poisoning is
    preferrable to one with trivial poisoning.
3. In living memory, we have survived repeated Bind remote exploits, SSH
remote exploits, a good number of
    OpenSSL remote exploits etc. -- I argue that the following
inequality holds:
    OpenSSL remote >= OpenSSH remote > Bind remote > easy DNS poisoning
    I argue this because the left-hand side usually implies the
right-hand side given some time & creativity.
    The net has survived much worse.

So I guess summary is: Good find, definitely useful for an attacker, but
we have survived much
worse without a need for the great-vendor-coordination jazz.

Cheers,
Halvar
PS: I am aware that my sangfroid could be likened to a russian roulette
player, that after winning 4 games concludes:
"This game clearly isn't dangerous."
PPS: It seems that we will find many more critical issues in DNS over
the next weeks - it's the first time
in years that a significant quantity of people look at the protocol /
implementations.