4 ms·

OpenSSH has actually been "pwned" numerous times though. It's a very desirable target.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
yeah and iirc erlang's ssl was one of the only ssl implementations not affected by heaetbleed since erlang is memory safe
- toast0 1y ago
  I'm a big fan of Erlang, but I don't think this is a fair thing to praise. Only OpenSSL had heartbleed. No other implementation of TLS protocols was affected. Many systems integrate with OpenSSL's protocol code, but there's also several that do their own protocol work and use ciphers from OpenSSL (and some that do both). Erlang's ssl implementation at the time of heartbleed wasn't anywhere close in throughput to using OpenSSL separately. If I'm remembering right, OTP 18 (June 2015) is when it got good enough that it made more sense to run an Erlang https server without a separate TLS termination daemon. Heartbleed became known April 2014, so Erlang SSL was too late to help there, really. More secure, but unusable wirh load doesn't help much. Also, Erlang SSL was one of many implementations thst needed to be reminded of 1998 era security issues in 2017. [1] [1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000385 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000385
rollcat 1y ago
I think in case of any security-critical project it's important to evaluate the track record objectively: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=OpenSSH https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=OpenSSH It's true that there are 5 advisories so far in this year alone, but let's consider the actual impact: CVE-2025-32728 - Error in documentation, possibly leading to misconfiguration CVE-2025-30095 - Debian+dropbear-specific CVE-2025-27731 - Windows-specific; local privilege escalation; OpenSSH doesn't target/support Windows CVE-2025-26466 - Remote DoS CVE-2025-26465 - MitM involving host key DNS verification; high attack complexity (relies on exhausting client memory) OpenBSD enables sshd(8) in the default install, and has so far had two RCEs in 30 years. Now, not everyone runs OpenBSD, but I'd personally throw the stones at e.g. Debian (see CVE-2008-0166).

yeah and iirc erlang's ssl was one of the only ssl implementations not affected by heaetbleed since erlang is memory safe

toast0 1y ago
I'm a big fan of Erlang, but I don't think this is a fair thing to praise. Only OpenSSL had heartbleed. No other implementation of TLS protocols was affected. Many systems integrate with OpenSSL's protocol code, but there's also several that do their own protocol work and use ciphers from OpenSSL (and some that do both). Erlang's ssl implementation at the time of heartbleed wasn't anywhere close in throughput to using OpenSSL separately. If I'm remembering right, OTP 18 (June 2015) is when it got good enough that it made more sense to run an Erlang https server without a separate TLS termination daemon. Heartbleed became known April 2014, so Erlang SSL was too late to help there, really. More secure, but unusable wirh load doesn't help much. Also, Erlang SSL was one of many implementations thst needed to be reminded of 1998 era security issues in 2017. [1] [1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000385 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000385

rollcat 1y ago

I think in case of any security-critical project it's important to evaluate the track record objectively: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=OpenSSH https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=OpenSSH It's true that there are 5 advisories so far in this year alone, but let's consider the actual impact: CVE-2025-32728 - Error in documentation, possibly leading to misconfiguration CVE-2025-30095 - Debian+dropbear-specific CVE-2025-27731 - Windows-specific; local privilege escalation; OpenSSH doesn't target/support Windows CVE-2025-26466 - Remote DoS CVE-2025-26465 - MitM involving host key DNS verification; high attack complexity (relies on exhausting client memory) OpenBSD enables sshd(8) in the default install, and has so far had two RCEs in 30 years. Now, not everyone runs OpenBSD, but I'd personally throw the stones at e.g. Debian (see CVE-2008-0166).