Message152811
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:00 +0000, Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote:
> Marc-Andre Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> added the comment:
>
> Alex Gaynor wrote:
> > There's no need to cover any container types, because if their constituent
> > types are securely hashable then they will be as well. And of course if
> > the constituent types are unsecure then they're directly vulnerable.
>
> I wouldn't necessarily take that for granted: since container
> types usually calculate their hash based on the hashes of their
> elements, it's possible that a clever combination of elements
> could lead to a neutralization of the the hash seed used by
> the elements, thereby reenabling the original attack on the
> unprotected interpreter.
>
> Still, because we have far more vulnerable hashable types out there,
> trying to find such an attack doesn't really make practical
> sense, so protecting containers is indeed not as urgent :-)
FWIW, I'm still awaiting review of my patches. I don't believe
Marc-Andre's concerns are a sufficient rebuttal to the approach I've
taken.
If anyone is aware of an attack via numeric hashing that's actually
possible, please let me know (privately). I believe only specific apps
could be affected, and I'm not aware of any such specific apps. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-02-07 15:41:38 | dmalcolm | set | recipients:
+ dmalcolm, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, loewis, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, grahamd, Arfrever, v+python, alex, zbysz, skrah, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5, skorgu |
2012-02-07 15:41:36 | dmalcolm | link | issue13703 messages |
2012-02-07 15:41:35 | dmalcolm | create | |
|