5 comments

  • mmsc 17 hours ago
    (2024).

    There are other vulnerabilities in that library too. I reported some (with some PRs) https://github.com/indutny/elliptic/pull/338, https://github.com/indutny/elliptic/pull/337, https://github.com/indutny/elliptic/issues/339 but I assume they'll never get fixed.

    The library is dead and should be marked as vulnerable on npmjs tbh.

  • throwaway81523 17 hours ago
    It's very hard to get stuff right with the secp curves. That's one of the reasons for the move to curve25519 and similar. The book "Guide to Elliptic Curve Cryptography" by Hankerson, Menezes, and Vanstone is mostly very careful step by step instruction of how to do secp* arithmetic properly. It would still be useful to have some formal verification to help the assurance of of any particular implementation.
    • pseudohadamard 15 hours ago
      25519 just brings in a different set of problems though, see for example https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am, and @mmsc's post above which barely scratches the surface.
    • Ar-Curunir 8 hours ago
      There are complete formulae for all prime-order Weierstrass curves. The work for secure implementation of prime-order curves is now simpler than for Edwards elliptic curves.
  • binkHN 1 day ago
    FYI: two vulnerabilities in elliptic, a widely used JavaScript library for elliptic curve cryptography
  • tuananh 21 hours ago
    > One vulnerability is still not fixed after a 90-day disclosure window that ended in October 2024. It remains unaddressed as of this publication.

    curious why now. should they public it last year after 90-day disclosure window ended?

    • tptacek 21 hours ago
      They can publish it whenever they want. There's no actual rules about this stuff. The 90 window is a courtesy.
      • pseudohadamard 15 hours ago
        Specifically, there are responsible disclosure guidelines that came about to deal with the problem of people dropping 0day on a vendor with no prior warning. So the 90 days is a commonly-accepted amount of time to give a vendor to produce a fix. If the vendor needs more time they can request that the submitter give them an extension, although in this case it appears the vendor never responded, thus the repeated entries in the timeline saying "tried to contact vendor, no response" to show they tried to do the right thing.
        • tptacek 7 hours ago
          No there aren't. "Responsible disclosure" is an Orwellian term invented by vendors to create the idea that publishing independent research without vendor permission is "irresponsible". It is absolutely not the case that researchers owe anybody 90 days, or are obligated to honor requests for extensions. Project Zero, which invented the 90-day-plus-extension system, does that as a courtesy.
    • dadrian 5 hours ago
      The 90-day disclosure window is an arbitrary courtesy, not a binding contract about the behavior of either party. They probably had other things to do.
  • l34zgl45y 23 hours ago
    [flagged]