« first day (3722 days earlier)      last day (1175 days later) » 

12:02 AM
I once saw a guy complaining about the security of his culinary school that had metal detectors, and they forbade you entering the school with nail clippers, but allowed people with a full set of butcher knives because the knives are school material, and the nail clippers were dangerous
gotta go too... bye guys, great discussion today
 
later
 
 
2 hours later…
1:49 AM
Another incorrect crypto answer on a non-crypto site...
This is completely wrong. Not only does a 4 byte HMAC not provide security against intentional modification (only a full HMAC can do that), but it is more vulnerable to accidental collisions as an n-bit CRC is guaranteed to detect any burst errors up to length n + 1, with the sole exception of the case where the CRC polynomial divides the burst error polynomial. — forest 28 mins ago
Wrote an answer in hopes that people don't follow the top answer's advice:
0
A: Is CRC pointless if I'm doing truncated HMAC?

forestIf you need secure authentication, use only the untruncated HMAC Assuming you don't care about security (which would be the case if you used a 4-byte HMAC), a CRC is actually better for detecting small accidental errors. An n-bit CRC is guaranteed to detect any burst error up to n + 1 bits in le...

 
 
1 hour later…
3:05 AM
Totally unrelated, but I love it when websites do this:
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c10/h13/mnt/143308/domains/tcbi.org/html/iotmdsec/wp-content/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack/modules/aioseop_opengraph.php on line 825
That looks so messy. Whoever runs that site is not a knowledgeable sysadmin!
 
 
5 hours later…
8:14 AM
@forest Re:only a full HMAC can do that - so if I concatenate an hmac-sha512 to 256 bits, is that also insecure?
Hey why isn't markdown for italics working in chat?
 
Yes it is
 
hmmm
wow it works now
it didn't before it just showed me the *s
 
hm
That's odd
I don't think they preview though
So you need to hit enter to see it
 
8:29 AM
yes I did
@forest I mean truncate, not concatenate :)
 
@nobody A MAC must be at least 256 bits long to get 128 bits of security. Also, by truncating an HMAC you might break its resistance against length-extension attacks (i'm not sure). Truncating an authenticated SHA3 would be better.
 
@A.Hersean That's why I was asking about truncating a 512 bit mac to 256 bits
 
8:46 AM
But why would someone truncate a HMAC-512 instead of using a HMAC-256? If I encountered it in an audit, I would flag it as insecure because it's not proven secure.
 
Yeah I'm just asking theoretically
 
9:04 AM
After reviewing the HMAC construction, you should be fine by truncating it to 256 bits. That complies with its design principle. However, I did not prove it mathematically.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:36 AM
Is it bad form to ask a question only to answer it myself?
Or, let me rephrase that: Anyone want some free rep?
 
10:58 AM
@MechMK1 no
 
Alright, will do so in a bit then
 
Jeff Atwood on July 01, 2011
The FAQ has contained one key bit of advice from the very beginning: It’s also perfectly fine to ask and answer your own question, as long as you pretend you’re on Jeopardy! — phrase it in the form of a question. So … if you have a question that you already know the answer to…
 
@MechMK1 there has been discussion on various sites as to whether or not it is polite to wait a wee bit to give someone else a chance to post a good answer, but there is no definite guidance on this. If you have a great answer, just go for it :-)
 
I'll ask the question and see if someone has a good answer
0
Q: Should a server set a cipher order?

MechMK1I've seen conflicting opinions on whether or not setting a cipher order is recommended. testssl.sh prints a red warning when no cipher order is encountered, implying that a lack of cipher order is considered a deficit. It also makes intuitive sense that a server should begin by offering the stron...

Enjoy your free rep :D
 
admittedly I also use SE as a documentation tool :D
 
11:08 AM
Nice!
I should start doing that as well
 
superuser.com/questions/1409745/… was an excuse to document packet capture with my DIY router :D
 
Also that's a pretty cool question
 
its not 'efficient' but DIY routers are fun :D
 
 
10 hours later…
9:17 PM
How the fuck did my question become a HNQ again?
 
9:28 PM
Can anyone recommend a "Security for Beginners" style of book?
Like something you can give to a web developer so they can learn security concepts
I believe OWASP made such a thing but I can't find it
 
Anonymous
10:05 PM
I wish I had a good suggestion for a book like that... Unfortunately, I don't. Web App Hackers Handbook is likely too unnecessary for a dev.
 
I wish I had some good book to point to like "You're interested in InfoSec? Start here!"
 
Anonymous
@forest Can you confirm if this is a printing issue for me...? (two secs)
 
Anonymous
 
Anonymous
why is P_1 at the far right.
 
Anonymous
and P_0 in the middle
 
Anonymous
10:08 PM
And same for why is FF_1 at the far right.
 
Anonymous
And same for S_1 actually
 
Anonymous
I feel like im asking a very stupid question.
 
Anonymous
WHich I likely am.
 
Anonymous
(LFSRs in case it wasn't clear)
 
Anonymous
For reference why I am confused... In ANOTHER diagram of the same thing. It is ordered with P_0 at the far right side. And likewise FF_0 and S_0 at the far right side.
 
Anonymous
10:11 PM
@MechMK1 Yeah, I wish I had more of those too... Unfortunately, all of the books I recommend are often more technical than you'd like for a beginner.
 
Anonymous
I generally don't have many good texts for someone REALLY new.
 
@J-- True
 
Anonymous
Yeah.. I think it is because when I started I generally didn't read many books.
 
Anonymous
I just started hacking shit.
 
Same
Bit I think it could be useful
 
Anonymous
10:14 PM
Oh no doubt.
 
Anonymous
I wish I had such things too, for sure.
 
Anonymous
Would save me a great deal of time.
 
11:38 PM
@J-- That's an odd diagram for an LFSR. I'm not used to that schematic.
Do you know how Fibonacci LFSRs work in general?
 

« first day (3722 days earlier)      last day (1175 days later) »