Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:07:09 +1100
On 2009-Feb-09 15:30:33 -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From what you're describing, I would be more inclined to carry a bootable
OS on that USB stick and reboot into that.
Keep in mind that libraries, internet cafes etc aren't going to be keen
on you turning up with some (to them) random USB stick and wanting to
reboot their pride-and-joy off it.
I suspect your choices are to either use OPIE (or some adaption thereof)
with ssh on an untrusted computer and assume that anything you type will
be logged or carry your own trusted computer and use some form of wireless
(3G, NextG etc) to communicate with your systems.
Note that using very large sequence numbers should slow down an
attacker (though only linerarly) since they still need to iterate
MD5 by that many rounds.
--
Peter Jeremy
Attachment:
pgptkTNv198Nn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- OPIE considered insecure
- From: Benjamin Lutz
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Daniel Roethlisberger
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Jason Stone
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Daniel Roethlisberger
- Re: OPIE considered insecure
- From: Lyndon Nerenberg
- OPIE considered insecure
- Prev by Date: Re: MAC subsystem and ZFS?
- Next by Date: Re: MAC subsystem and ZFS?
- Previous by thread: Re: OPIE considered insecure
- Next by thread: Re: OPIE considered insecure
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|