BrianKrebs on Nostr: Reason #2,391 why revisiting security assumptions is always a good idea. [Bimi] No ...

Reason #2,391 why revisiting security assumptions is always a good idea.

[Bimi] No cryptographic connection between VMC and DKIM key

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/Ba3jFfJ8K6ic7qg4DzPsIsGW5UY/

My favorite part:

"I guess some may consider what I just said as an unimportant or a merely theoretical issue, so I would like to illustrate it with an example. Let's take the domain entrust.com. It has a DKIM key
configured at "dkim._domainkey.entrust.com". The TXT record is the following:

"v=DKIM1; k=rsa;
p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCyGF0xzO7Eig1H8QdIErjEKOGnIVvoLU5VjcMRBRWZK65NinL+gVnjuMD2mYdjC3f+7sQCWxGDSKIFn/bB+iXxO2x1/ktkwXHQfQ/9FcFuy+LE0Snsm0SwXN/2l1m5f9e1xdswC+dzHt6DIpDSDENsRal019YKQTqwVyB++7QORwIDAQAB"

This is a 1024 bit RSA key, which is not up to modern standards. But breaking 1024 bit RSA is still only feasible for very powerful attackers. However, this key has another problem: it is vulnerable to
the Debian OpenSSL bug (CVE-2008-0166). It is trivially possible to
find the private key (you can use my tool badkeys -
https://badkeys.info/ - to do that):

https://github.com/badkeys/debianopenssl/blob/main/rsa1024/ssl/le32/25731-rnd.key";