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

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 02:14:58PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

> > Second... "blackhat"? I have never done anything in my life that could  
> > be categorized as "blackhat" material. 
> 
> You collaborate with a known blackhat, Kaminsky. That makes you a
> blackhat, too.  (Media3 v. MAPS) That is a fact. 

Am I blackhat, too, then, since I collaborated with Kevin by making the
patches[1]? I can't wait to reap the ill-gotten rewards of my life of
crime.

But wait, earlier you said:

> Also, Kaminsky (and presumably Day) are reasonably skilled
> programmers, and the changes aren't very big; and DNScache isn't very
> complicated.  Getting King to implement the changes and dropping
> Kaminsky and Day's involvement is also kind of like laundering the
> blackhat taint using Jeff King's non-blackhat reputation.

So do I still get to launder the blackhat taint away?

My point isn't that I think your conspiracy theories are silly (which I
do). It is that name-calling and second-guessing motives doesn't change 
one whit the content of the patches. It doesn't change whether there is
a birthday attack against dnscache, nor what probabilities an attacker
can expect (though obviously the risk posed by that probability is up to
individual dnscache sites to determine). It doesn't change how the
patches affect that probability. And it doesn't change whether or not
there is a different attack that is made easier by the patches.

So either you have some legitimate analysis which shows a problem with
the patches (which I have yet to see), or you don't.

-Peff

[1]: Furthermore, by collaborating with Kevin do I now have a "Kaminsky
number" of 2?