[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??

To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
From: Dirk Mueller <dmuell@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:17:04 +0100

On Thursday 27 November 2003 09:26, Wojciech Purczynski wrote:

> 15 bits of randomness isn't sufficient to prevent guessing its value.

current linux kernels provide more than 15bit pids ( I think its 30 or 
31bits). Not much more, but it makes it slightly more difficult. 

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
  - From: Thomas Preissler <tomjohn@gmx.de>
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
  - From: Wojciech Purczynski <cliph@isec.pl>

References:
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
  - From: Wojciech Purczynski <cliph@isec.pl>

Prev by Date: [Full-Disclosure] GnuPG's ElGamal signing keys compromised
Next by Date: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
Previous by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
Next by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Attacks based on predictable process IDs??
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread