You're viewing the slime.global public feed.

Federated feed Local feed

Oct 20, 2026, 3:56 PM

4 times the SECP384-R1 base point is (0x138251cd52ac9298c1c8aad977321deb97e709bd0b4ca0aca55dc8ad51dcfc9d1589a1597e3a5120e1efd631c63e1835, 0xcacae29869a62e1631e8a28181ab56616dc45d918abc09f3ab0e63cf792aa4dced7387be37bba569549f1c02b270ed67)

https://repository.emsign.com/certs/EMOVTLSCAG3C.crt

for the non-cryptographers at the back of the room: the private key is 4, just the number 4, nothing more

Certificate:
    Data:
        Version: 3 (0x2)
        Issuer: C=IN, O=eMudhra Technologies Limited, CN=emSign Root TLS CA - G3
        Subject: C=US, O=eMudhra Inc, CN=EM OV TLS CA - G3C
        Subject Public Key Info:
            Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
                Public-Key: (384 bit)
                pub:
04:13:82:51:cd:52:ac:92:98:c1:c8:aa:d9:77:32:
1d:eb:97:e7:09:bd:0b:4c:a0:ac:a5:5d:c8:ad:51:
dc:fc:9d:15:89:a1:59:7e:3a:51:20:e1:ef:d6:31:
c6:3e:18:35:ca:ca:e2:98:69:a6:2e:16:31:e8:a2:
81:81:ab:56:61:6d:c4:5d:91:8a:bc:09:f3:ab:0e:
63:cf:79:2a:a4:dc:ed:73:87:be:37:bb:a5:69:54:
9f:1c:02:b2:70:ed:67
                ASN1 OID: secp384r1
                NIST CURVE: P-384

💬 32🔄 216⭐ 197

Replies

Ellieelliewithcolor@queer.group
Oct 20, 2026, 4:00 PM
@q ohhh my… -.-
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
nyannyanbinary@infosec.exchange
Oct 20, 2026, 4:01 PM
@q are you fucking kidding me?
💬 0🔄 1⭐ 5
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:02 PM
@nyanbinary I wish I was
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
cpressercccpresser@chaos.social
Oct 20, 2026, 4:14 PM
@q ELI5? I have almost zero knowledge in crypto and don't understand it.
💬 1🔄 2⭐ 5
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:39 PM
@cccpresser the private key for a certificate that can attest for other websites (super super secret) is the number 4
yes its as stupid as it sounds
💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
Мя mo@mastodon.ml
Oct 20, 2026, 5:45 PM
@cccpresser cryptography, basically, is doing math with input data, and a secret number. You want secret number to be big and random, so no one could guess it and undo your math
number 4 is, obviously, neither big nor very random...
@q
💬 0🔄 1⭐ 1
rzeta0rzeta0@mastodon.world
Oct 20, 2026, 6:47 PM
@mo @cccpresser @q
I'm no expert so tell me where I'm wrong:
1. If you have a large range from which to choose a number randomly then 4 is entirely possible.
2. The criterion is a number hard to factor.
Is that right?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 7:12 PM
@rzeta0 @mo @cccpresser 2 is only true for RSA keys, this is ECDSA
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Klaynycki@critters.gay
Oct 21, 2026, 4:17 AM
@q@glauca.space @rzeta0@mastodon.world @mo@mastodon.ml @cccpresser@chaos.social what is it based on if its not prime factors this time?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Rr@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:04 PM
@q h-how????
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 4
Rr@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:05 PM
@q someone finally beat sony at ecdsa fuckups?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:30 PM
@r yes, somehow
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
nadjadequbed@mastodon.chaosfield.at
Oct 20, 2026, 4:07 PM
@q OH COME THE FUCK ON, WHAT IS THIS, AMATEUR HOUR?!
💬 2🔄 1⭐ 11
Ellieelliewithcolor@queer.group
Oct 20, 2026, 4:08 PM
@dequbed @q ONE JOB. They had one fucking job. -.-
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
nadjadequbed@mastodon.chaosfield.at
Oct 20, 2026, 4:32 PM
@elliewithcolor @q wanna bet this is the result of whatever scuffed migration from RSA they implemented going "we want our exponent to be small because that's good practice. But hey there's no exponent here. Oh well, let's just pick this random number and keep it small, that's the industry standard practice after all!"
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:33 PM
@dequbed @elliewithcolor given what their cert repo looks like, could well be an LLM based cockup https://repository.emsign.com
💬 2🔄 1⭐ 0
nadjadequbed@mastodon.chaosfield.at
Oct 20, 2026, 4:37 PM
@q @elliewithcolor oh god
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Richard Levittelevitte@mastodon.nu
Oct 21, 2026, 10:08 AM
@q @dequbed @elliewithcolor
I doubt it, unless they used a really shitty model.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
M Schommermusevg@23.social
Oct 21, 2026, 1:11 PM
@elliewithcolor @dequbed @q
Well. It is… the simplest number to do a prime number refactoring on.
But we *can* do a prime number refactoring on it.
(If that's too easy for you, increase the refactoring difficulty. Use 6 instead of 4.)
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 21, 2026, 1:25 PM
@musevg @elliewithcolor @dequbed primality has nothing to do with this, this is EC not RSA
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:29 PM
@dequbed evidently, it is
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
hexchenhexchen@chaoswit.ch
Oct 20, 2026, 4:31 PM
@q ...they did WHAT?
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:32 PM
@hexchen XKCD 221
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
hexchenhexchen@chaoswit.ch
Oct 20, 2026, 4:35 PM
@q yes, i can't fucking believe it... jesus christ
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
What Ever Happened to Baby Joan?clickhere@mastodon.ie
Oct 20, 2026, 8:45 PM
@q 🫠
@hexchen
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
dr.-ing. ⁡jasegjaseg@chaos.social
Oct 20, 2026, 4:31 PM
@q it’s fucking literally that one xkcd wtf
💬 0🔄 41⭐ 104
Rr@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:33 PM
@q i see you doing ninja-edits (for better scicomm?)
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:34 PM
@r yes, actually
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Klaus Frankagowa338@chaos.social
Oct 20, 2026, 4:39 PM
@q
getRandomNumber() {
return 4;
};
But is this one also chosen via a fair dice roll?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 8
dch :flantifa: :flan_hacker:dch@bsd.network
Oct 20, 2026, 4:46 PM
@q cc @fellmoon
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
penguin42penguin42@mastodon.org.uk
Oct 20, 2026, 4:46 PM
@q Perhaps the last one was 3.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 4
MaeMae@is.badat.dev
Oct 20, 2026, 4:54 PM
@q damn mustve gotten really unlucky with their rng
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 4:58 PM
@Mae all their private keys are <256, this isn't some RNG accident
💬 2🔄 0⭐ 1
MaeMae@is.badat.dev
Oct 20, 2026, 5:00 PM
@q *really unlucky*
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Resunaresuna@ohai.social
Oct 20, 2026, 5:55 PM
@q @Mae
> all their private keys are <256
WAT?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Sven A. Schmidtfinestructure@mastodon.social
Oct 20, 2026, 4:57 PM
@q @catsalad Seems legit https://xkcd.com/221/
💬 0🔄 5⭐ 9
Luna Lacteajackemled@furry.engineer
Oct 20, 2026, 4:59 PM
@q Someone must have thought it would be funny.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
amy :neocat_cofe:amy@sk.girlthi.ng
Oct 20, 2026, 5:09 PM
@q@glauca.space like. literally just the number 4? if you encrypted anything with 4 it would replicate the public key? how did this ever get through anything? how does the algo even allow a key that small
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
amy :neocat_cofe:amy@sk.girlthi.ng
Oct 20, 2026, 5:11 PM
@q@glauca.space oh i see from somewhere else it was 0 padded....? what the fuck is even PKI
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Ivo Janschijansch@mastodon.social
Oct 20, 2026, 5:16 PM
@q
💬 0🔄 13⭐ 33
Charlotte :lotteheartplural:/Cinny :cinny_heart_plural: :thetadelta: :ursaminor: :treblesand: charlotte@akko.chir.rs
Oct 20, 2026, 5:26 PM
@q yeah it seems all of their certs got one (1) byte of randomness in their private key. frankly bizarre. how do you even fuck that up
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
artemistartemist@mildlyfunctional.gay
Oct 20, 2026, 5:30 PM
@q I checked their other intermediates; they are 115, 155, 56, 66, 156, 237, and 230.
I think they used a real RNG but only requested one byte
💬 4🔄 21⭐ 32
Phil M0OFXphilpem@digipres.club
Oct 20, 2026, 5:42 PM
@artemist @q This has all the energy of being a certificate issuance serial number
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
kasperdkasperd@westergaard.social
Oct 20, 2026, 7:21 PM
That sounds plausible. That list of numbers certainly looks like each of them may very well have been one random number.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Erik Mogensenmogsie@oslo.town
Oct 20, 2026, 7:52 PM
@artemist @q
When all their PKs are < 256 I wonder if this could be a bug in some off-the-shelf software. Sure, maybe they rolled their own crypto, but also, maybe they used buggy software. Maybe this affects other intermediates or certs from other CAs?
I mean who looks at their PK material to check that it's not filled with 0s?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Thomas Guyot-Sionnestdermoth@jasette.facil.services
Oct 21, 2026, 4:46 AM
@artemist @q For a moment I was wondering if they somehow managed to use Debian's crippled PRNG (CVE-2008-0166) but even that one was orders of magnitude more "secure" 🙃
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Cadentarix29@tech.lgbt
Oct 20, 2026, 5:35 PM
@q if anyone tells me "surely nobody would be that stupid" in any context ever I will point them to this
💬 0🔄 2⭐ 4
Martamartaczc@mastodon.com.pl
Oct 20, 2026, 5:47 PM
@q Ok, so 4 is the answer (even more stupid that 42, I do agree). But what was the question? Whose door does it open?
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 5:49 PM
@martaczc HTTPs certificates
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Martamartaczc@mastodon.com.pl
Oct 20, 2026, 5:57 PM
@q Does it even have sense to use https crtificates these days? Except that most web browsers require them? I've heard that this is quite easy to receive a cerificate for a scam websites while I quite often encounter the situation that I cannot easily access a legit website of the organisation I know becouse someone has forgotten to prolonge their certificate.
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Renérfleschenberg@mastodon.social
Oct 20, 2026, 6:25 PM
@martaczc @q The issue here is that this makes it easy to get a certificate for ANY site on the internet, like google.com etc.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Martamartaczc@mastodon.com.pl
Oct 20, 2026, 6:28 PM
@rfleschenberg @q So I could pretend that my website is google.com?
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
Renérfleschenberg@mastodon.social
Oct 20, 2026, 6:28 PM
@martaczc @q Yes.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
Martamartaczc@mastodon.com.pl
Oct 20, 2026, 6:42 PM
@rfleschenberg @q Oh. Now I regret I don't have skills to exploit it for good, like to make o fake google startpage to rise awareness of Googles involvment in the genocide in Gaza or in spreading climate disinformation. And probably before I lern to make it will already be patched.
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
tanavit 🇨🇵tanavit@pouet.chapril.org
Oct 20, 2026, 5:56 PM
@q
Pardon my ignorance but are not private keys supposed to be large prime numbers ?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
scunneen (he/him) 🚋scunneen@mastodon.social
Oct 20, 2026, 5:58 PM
@q
💬 0🔄 1⭐ 2
Noisytootnoisytoot@berkeley.edu.pl
Oct 20, 2026, 6:02 PM
@q what the fuck?
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
jendrikjendrik@chaos.social
Oct 20, 2026, 6:19 PM
@q I thought that small numbers like that would be automatically rejected or something? Maybe I'm misremembering. Or was that RSA?
💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
210561 ✨ [Q]q@glauca.space
Oct 20, 2026, 6:20 PM
@jendrik that’s RSA
💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
OverSoftOverSoft@infosec.exchange
Oct 20, 2026, 6:24 PM
@q How has no-one ran into this yet? Or was this so stupid that no-one even bothered to try because “nobody could’ve chosen a key this simple”?
💬 2🔄 0⭐ 1