• AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    I work in cryptography, and I guarantee if that’s true “some person you know who worked in government security” would not tell you if they did know, or they are pulling shit out of their ass. There have been so many people that have looked at or worked on SSL/TLS implementations (including some of my coworkers), any vulnerabilities would have to be pretty subtle or clever, and that would be kept highly classified. Quit making shit up or repeating bullshit you heard.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sure, if we’re talking about code vulnerabilities only. It’s most likely a compromised root cert though.

      • AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        That just would allow a malicious attacker to fake being the server, it doesn’t actually compromise the TLS session. So you are talking about a much more sophisticated multi stage attack that needs to be actively executed. This wouldn’t at all allow them to record traffic and decrypt later.

        The certs authenticate that you are talking to the real server, the symmetric session keys that are usually derived from a diffie helman key exchange have nothing to do with certs. That’s two separate (but connected) parts of the transaction to build a TLS session.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Right, this would be a MitM vulnerability, which could be reasonably viable for targeted attacks.