• cannedtuna@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes. It was found that some private keys weren’t as secure as expected, one was found to be just the number 4 where keys should be hundreds of characters long.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Thanks. That’s incredible. How do you generate a key with the number 4 lol? Generate it then delete everything and replace or with a4?

      • diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I don’t know but anything is possible, especially in the age of AI. My guess is that there was some code that accepted a “size” for a key because “everything needs to be configurable”, and someone just figured to put in 1 because “well I want a 1 key sized key”. One of the results was 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:04.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        My guess is they understood that they were supposed to generate a random key but didn’t know how to do it properly and instead of using a cryptographically secure method that involves large prime numbers, ended up using a single randomized byte.

        Though even that might be more complicated than what they did, because it’s also possible they just manually created them, maybe approaching it as a “this will be a shared resource in this office so let’s make it easy to share”.

        Or maybe it was deliberately made unsecure to allow other fuckery, like spying on anyone using one of those keys or using the ability to sign certificates with a trusted cert.