🚀 go-pugleaf

I think it was Urbin <urbin@invalid.invalid> that wrote something
like...

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:09:06 +0000, Catriona R wrote:
>> 
>>  On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), ScratchMonkey
>> <ScratchMonk...@sewingwitch.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/rsa-warns-customers-targeted-attacks-
>> >wake-hack-031811
>> 
>>  Guess not: 
>> 
>>  "The Blizzard Authenticators are based off modified Vasco tokens. I'm
>>  sorry to hear about RSA's troubles, but it will not affect the
>>  Blizzard Authenticator."
>> 
>>  http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/164619/rsa-compromise-concerns-about-authenticators
>
>Hm, famous last words or justified consolation?
>

Well, it sounds like the Blizzard authenticators use a somewhat
different algorithm to the RSA ones, so nothing about the RSA stuff
would give a direct method to hacking Blizzard authenticators.  The
only possible problem that I could see would be if the RSA stuff isn't
actually properly designed.  A properly designed encryption method is
secure even if people know exactly how it works.  If however, the RSA
stuff *isn'* properly designed and the Blizzard authenticators use a
similarly improper design, then knowing how the RSA stuff is weak
could show someone how the Blizzard authenticators are probably weak
and thus how to "hack" them.

RSA's comments suggest that their design is probably designed properly
and their suggestions to be careful are just ones that everyone should
be doing anyway all the time to avoid man in the middle attacks that
circumvent the protection from having an authenticator.


Ashen Shugar
-- 
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!