I was going to laugh off this Kaspersky password manager bug, but it is *amazing*. In the sense that I’ve never seen so many broken things in one simple piece of code. donjon.ledger.com/kaspersky-pass…
Like seriously, WTF is even happening here. Why are they sampling *floats*? Why are they multiplying them together? Is this witchcraft? 
And here, Kaspersky decided that instead of picking a random password, they should bias the password to be non-random and thus “less likely to be on a cracker list”. 🤦🏻♂️
Then they used a non-cryptographic PRNG (Mersenne Twister). Amusingly, this is probably the *least* bad thing Kaspersky did, even though it’s terribly bad.
And in case you thought that after doing everything else wrong, they were going to do the next part right: nope. They then proceed to seed the whole damn thing with time(0).
I have to admire the combination of needless complexity combined with absolutely breathtaking incompetence.
Anyway, before anyone kills me for being mean to developers doing the best they can… The real takeaway here is that (obviously) nobody with even modest cryptographic knowledge ever audited, thought about, or came near this product.
And in case you’re of the opinion that bad implementations are unique to Kaspersky: it’s entirely possible to make some other mainstream password managers “hang forever” by setting the password chatset constraints too high, indicating that they haven’t figured this out either.
Some actual constructive lessons:
* Always use a real RNG to generate unpredictable seeds, never time(0)
* Always use a cryptographic RNG
* Never ever use floats in cryptography (I suspect some Javascript nonsense here)
* To convert from bits to an alphabet of symbols… 1/
* Always use a real RNG to generate unpredictable seeds, never time(0)
* Always use a cryptographic RNG
* Never ever use floats in cryptography (I suspect some Javascript nonsense here)
* To convert from bits to an alphabet of symbols… 1/
(Rewriting this because now I’m afraid people will take advice from tweets)
You should use rejection sampling, with you can find articles about online. Be careful that your rejection loop doesn’t run forever.
You should use rejection sampling, with you can find articles about online. Be careful that your rejection loop doesn’t run forever.
And please, get someone to look at your code. Especially if it’s going to be in a mainstream product. You cannot ever ship anything bespoke like this without having an expert glance it over. Even an hour would have flagged all this stuff.
Oh gosh.
Anyway I recently had a discussion with a group of expert cryptographers/cryptographic engineers about whether “don’t roll your own crypto” is a helpful rule, or if it’s non-inclusive.
I don’t know the answer, but stuff like this is why the phrase was invented.
I don’t know the answer, but stuff like this is why the phrase was invented.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
