You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Assuming random number generators behave normally, we should not have many name duplications given we use random name (1 out of 5494) and a 100000 to 999999 random id.
10^5 * 9 * 5494
4944600000
However, we see hundreds of thousands of duplicates in our logs. Yes, we have millions of sessions but still it's too much.
SessionIDs are generated in pyrdp.core.mitm like this:
$ python random_names_check.py
....................................................................................................
Generated names: 1000000
Results of non duplicates remaining:
Old way : 998005
New namelib : 999960
New random : 998005
New digit length (+1) : 999799
All Combined : 999998
Combined namelib / +1 : 999997
This impacts our log hunting capabilities.
Assuming random number generators behave normally, we should not have many name duplications given we use random name (1 out of 5494) and a 100000 to 999999 random id.
However, we see hundreds of thousands of duplicates in our logs. Yes, we have millions of sessions but still it's too much.
SessionIDs are generated in
pyrdp.core.mitm
like this:The
names
module seems to have dubious crypto as is challenged here: treyhunner/names#18 (comment)With 2.0 on the horizon, it's time to re-evaluate how we generate session IDs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: