4 ms·

I always assumed ubuntu was brought down to prevent ubuntu servers from patching copy.fail, so that hacking group could exploit as many targets during that time

• bayindirh 5mo ago
  copy.fail patches can be applied with minimum downtime, and a VM reboots in 30 seconds, tops, regardless of size. I believe all the apex servers are configured as HA to keep the load distributed, so normal users won't feel anything when copy.fail is patched. Our users didn't feel a thing when we rolled out the patches.
  • Lukas_Skywalker 5mo ago
    But the Ubuntu update servers are necessary to serve the update. Taking them down prevents the users from downloading the update. I don't know whether the update servers were affected though.
    • queenkjuul 5mo ago
      They were affected, update service was intermittent for a couple days
      • rationalist 5mo ago
        It is apparently still intermittent as it no longer works when I'm on a VPN, but does work when I disconnect from the VPN.
• throw0101c 5mo ago
  > I always assumed ubuntu was brought down to prevent ubuntu servers from patching copy.fail On Ubuntu copy.fail could be mitigated against with some modprobe(8) config tweaks: # echo "install algif_aead /bin/false" > /etc/modprobe.d/disable-algif.conf # rmmod algif_aead There may be some processes that use this functionality ("lsof | grep AF_ALG"), but it is not that widespread AIUI, and so disabling it should not be an issue for the vast majority of systems.