Re: 2 forwarded messages...DNSEXT discussion of Day and Kaminsky

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Dean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> My solution keeps the randomness high (keeps the popcorn popper going
> full steam),

If I need 5 fair die rolls, I'm going to get equally random results if
I roll a fair die 5 times or if I roll it 50 times and only take every
10th roll.

> I see a lot of net people talking with this term. I see no scientific
> papers that use it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeprint.iacr.org+%22security+reduction%22

It's a common cryptography term.  It's the security analog of proving
complexity classes for computer science problems (e.g., showing that a
problem is NP by reducing it to another NP problem).

> For example, if you change it so to bind the port to 53, the chances of
> a brute force attack change to 1 in 65536. Doh.

Did you honestly think such a change is on topic?  We might as well
discuss changes that remove the chroot/setuid protections and call
system(3) on every incoming packet.