5 ms·

OpenSSL Security Advisory

55 points by hannob 10y ago

busterarm 10y ago
I have OpenSSL update fatigue.
- gbrown_ 10y ago
  We all do. What distros is this affecting though? It seems like this is only in "recent" versions.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Aren't these the currently maintained versions? Anying pre-1.0.1 is no longer being maintained, and they note 1.0.1 will be going away soon too.
    - gbrown_ 10y ago
      Quite right! I missed that bit. Note ==== Support for version 1.0.1 ended on 31st December 2016. Support for versions 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 ended on 31st December 2015. Those versions are no longer receiving security updates.
    - xuhu 10y ago
      It's not clear whether the first CVE (crash via OOB read) affects 1.0.1.
    - jlgaddis 10y ago
      The OpenSSL team may not be maintaining them but some distros are.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Sadly this may be a feature of all cryptographic software. Isolate your exposed services, give them push button deploys to get current versions out to each node as quickly as possible.
  - jdc0589 10y ago
    > Isolate your exposed services Most important part. vulnerabilities need to get patched, period. But I'm a lot less stressed about it when I know my publicly exposed surface is small, and even that has layers in front of it.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    I don't think the code that Bernstein writes has many vulnerabilities.
josteink 10y ago
> OpenSSL 1.0.2k users should upgrade to 1.0.2k Well that's certainly helpful advice :)
imglorp 10y ago
Another OOB? At this point, hasn't anyone run a static analyzer on the darn thing and fixed all the warnings? 11/16 - NPR - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-November/000087.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Nove... 9/16 - dangling pointer - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-September/000083.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Sept... 5/16 - buffer underflow - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-May/000072.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-May/... 3/16 - NPE, double free, etc - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-March/000066.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Marc... ... I'm tired looking...
- acdha 10y ago
  Every time I've looked at the code, it's been … idiosyncratic to the point where I would imagine that “fixing all of the warnings” would be a significant exercise.
- aninteger 10y ago
  The OpenBSD team runs coverity on their LibreSSL fork and continues to improve the codebase constantly. More distributions are switching to LibreSSL too.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  If static analyzers could find all problems in C with a low false positive rate, then that'd eliminate one of the big problems with C and partially negate the need for Rust.
  - technion 10y ago
    I've run several respected static analyzers against several well respected projects and I'm lucky if I get more than 2-3 false positives. In the Argon2 reference library, the one alert from Infer was a genuine bug I sent a PR for, followed by one alert from tis-interpreter that was another genuine bug. clang-analyser produces clean output. It's true that you get so many false positives under OpenSSL it's not feasible to review. I would contend this is an indicator of code quality more than an indicator of poor static analysers.
willvarfar 10y ago
For those looking around for near-drop-in replacement: https://www.libressl.org/ https://www.libressl.org/
rrdharan 10y ago
The most serious ones seem to be 32-bit only, which may provide you some relief / buy you some time if all your servers are 64-bit (though you should probably still upgrade).
esseti 10y ago
what's the last version on jessy (debian) ? checking on my machiens says 1.0.1t . in one of the comment it seesm that 1.0.1 is not updated anymore. checking the apt-cache policy openssl shows installed and candidates as 1.0.1t-1+deb8u5. What should I do?
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  write your own encryption libraries. you're all idiots.
- jxcl 10y ago
  This is a very useful site for Debian security issues: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/openssl https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/o...
  - esseti 10y ago
    so only unstable is secure.. what's the general approach then? Should I use sid? (this is controinutitive)
guidovranken 10y ago
I've written this article on CVE-2017-3730: https://guidovranken.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/cve-2017-3730-openssl-1-1-0-remote-client-denial-of-service-affects-servers-as-well-poc/ https://guidovranken.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/cve-2017-3730-... It includes proofs of concept and touches upon the fact that client vulnerabilities can affect some servers just as well, because servers sometimes initiate connections to other servers. Mail servers do this, as well as certain web applications.
PuffinBlue 10y ago
Interesting to see the note about version 1.0.1 there. Isn't that the latest available in Ubuntu 14.04? Note ==== Support for version 1.0.1 ended on 31st December 2016. Support for versions 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 ended on 31st December 2015. Those versions are no longer receiving security updates. I'm not intamately familiar how Ubuntu handles LTS releases, but I'd assume they don't backport security releases for such old third party packages? Or do they? EDIT: I can answer my own question, they do backport security updates, even for unsupported software that they still ship http://askubuntu.com/questions/863477/will-ubuntu-14-04-release-security-updates-for-openssl-1-0-1-even-after-31st-dec http://askubuntu.com/questions/863477/will-ubuntu-14-04-rele... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/1596693 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/15966...

55 points by hannob 10y ago

busterarm 10y ago

I have OpenSSL update fatigue.

gbrown_ 10y ago
We all do. What distros is this affecting though? It seems like this is only in "recent" versions.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Aren't these the currently maintained versions? Anying pre-1.0.1 is no longer being maintained, and they note 1.0.1 will be going away soon too.
  - gbrown_ 10y ago
    Quite right! I missed that bit. Note ==== Support for version 1.0.1 ended on 31st December 2016. Support for versions 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 ended on 31st December 2015. Those versions are no longer receiving security updates.
  - xuhu 10y ago
    It's not clear whether the first CVE (crash via OOB read) affects 1.0.1.
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    The OpenSSL team may not be maintaining them but some distros are.
bluejekyll 10y ago
Sadly this may be a feature of all cryptographic software. Isolate your exposed services, give them push button deploys to get current versions out to each node as quickly as possible.
- jdc0589 10y ago
  > Isolate your exposed services Most important part. vulnerabilities need to get patched, period. But I'm a lot less stressed about it when I know my publicly exposed surface is small, and even that has layers in front of it.
- Diederich 10y ago
  I don't think the code that Bernstein writes has many vulnerabilities.

josteink 10y ago

> OpenSSL 1.0.2k users should upgrade to 1.0.2k Well that's certainly helpful advice :)

imglorp 10y ago

Another OOB? At this point, hasn't anyone run a static analyzer on the darn thing and fixed all the warnings? 11/16 - NPR - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-November/000087.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Nove... 9/16 - dangling pointer - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-September/000083.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Sept... 5/16 - buffer underflow - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-May/000072.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-May/... 3/16 - NPE, double free, etc - https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-March/000066.html https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2016-Marc... ... I'm tired looking...

acdha 10y ago
Every time I've looked at the code, it's been … idiosyncratic to the point where I would imagine that “fixing all of the warnings” would be a significant exercise.
aninteger 10y ago
The OpenBSD team runs coverity on their LibreSSL fork and continues to improve the codebase constantly. More distributions are switching to LibreSSL too.
MichaelGG 10y ago
If static analyzers could find all problems in C with a low false positive rate, then that'd eliminate one of the big problems with C and partially negate the need for Rust.
- technion 10y ago
  I've run several respected static analyzers against several well respected projects and I'm lucky if I get more than 2-3 false positives. In the Argon2 reference library, the one alert from Infer was a genuine bug I sent a PR for, followed by one alert from tis-interpreter that was another genuine bug. clang-analyser produces clean output. It's true that you get so many false positives under OpenSSL it's not feasible to review. I would contend this is an indicator of code quality more than an indicator of poor static analysers.

willvarfar 10y ago

For those looking around for near-drop-in replacement: https://www.libressl.org/ https://www.libressl.org/

rrdharan 10y ago

The most serious ones seem to be 32-bit only, which may provide you some relief / buy you some time if all your servers are 64-bit (though you should probably still upgrade).

esseti 10y ago

what's the last version on jessy (debian) ? checking on my machiens says 1.0.1t . in one of the comment it seesm that 1.0.1 is not updated anymore. checking the apt-cache policy openssl shows installed and candidates as 1.0.1t-1+deb8u5. What should I do?

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
write your own encryption libraries. you're all idiots.
jxcl 10y ago
This is a very useful site for Debian security issues: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/openssl https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/o...
- esseti 10y ago
  so only unstable is secure.. what's the general approach then? Should I use sid? (this is controinutitive)

guidovranken 10y ago

I've written this article on CVE-2017-3730: https://guidovranken.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/cve-2017-3730-openssl-1-1-0-remote-client-denial-of-service-affects-servers-as-well-poc/ https://guidovranken.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/cve-2017-3730-... It includes proofs of concept and touches upon the fact that client vulnerabilities can affect some servers just as well, because servers sometimes initiate connections to other servers. Mail servers do this, as well as certain web applications.

PuffinBlue 10y ago

Interesting to see the note about version 1.0.1 there. Isn't that the latest available in Ubuntu 14.04? Note ==== Support for version 1.0.1 ended on 31st December 2016. Support for versions 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 ended on 31st December 2015. Those versions are no longer receiving security updates. I'm not intamately familiar how Ubuntu handles LTS releases, but I'd assume they don't backport security releases for such old third party packages? Or do they? EDIT: I can answer my own question, they do backport security updates, even for unsupported software that they still ship http://askubuntu.com/questions/863477/will-ubuntu-14-04-release-security-updates-for-openssl-1-0-1-even-after-31st-dec http://askubuntu.com/questions/863477/will-ubuntu-14-04-rele... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/1596693 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/15966...