4 ms·

I'm no security expert, so this is an honest question. Why was Tarsnap running a version of OpenSSL that's at least two years old^1 ? My understanding is that,

by zck 13y ago

I'm no security expert, so this is an honest question. Why was Tarsnap running a version of OpenSSL that's at least two years old^1 ? My understanding is that, while you might not want to upgrade immediately upon release (because there may be new bugs), neither should you never upgrade (because releases fix old bugs). Is it because the website itself doesn't do much -- it's not the business; backup is -- so not much time is put into it? [1] OpenSSL 1.0.1, the first version of OpenSSL with the bug, was released in March 2012: http://heartbleed.com/ http://heartbleed.com/

revelation 13y ago
Security fixes are usually backported for affected versions, and presumably Colin installed these updates. This depends on the distribution you choose and if you are running a release where they have guaranteed critical updates (i.e. Ubuntu LTS releases). What you do miss out on is new protocol support, which for TLS can be a huge problem when secure and compatible crypto options run out. (Sadly, people will usually err on the side of compatibility, which in the past boils down to the terrible RC4)
cperciva 13y ago
The Tarsnap website is running on FreeBSD 9, which gets OpenSSL bug fixes backported.
tptacek 13y ago
OpenSSL frequently hosts vulnerabilities that don't affect all users of TLS. If you pay attention to the updates (as Colin surely does), you can filter down to the updates that matter. It's a risky thing to do if you're not willing to own those judgement calls; I wouldn't recommend that most shops do that. Among other things, you need to eyeball the diffs.
- X-Istence 13y ago
  Or he is running an older version of FreeBSD that contains an older version of OpenSSL in the base.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    For what it's worth: he's the former FreeBSD security officer, so I wouldn't worry too much about which version of FreeBSD he's using.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        "Argument by authority" is not a fatal fallacy. The key insight is appealing to an irrelevant authority. For example: Oprah says heartbleed is not a problem. Maybe she's right, maybe she's not. But appealing to her authority doesn't help because she's not an authority on this topic. Colin Percival knows a lot about FreeBSD security. This appeal to authority is much stronger, because Colin Percival is the former FreeBSD Security Officer, runs a security-conscious SaaS, provides security review and consulting services, publishes on security matters, has corrected major companies' security errors and has developed novel cryptographic algorithms.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Maybe the more precise way to say this is that an appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. It's especially not fallacious when the actual debate is about the person being appealed to. :)
        hueving 13y ago
        I'm going to nitpick... >The key insight is appealing to an irrelevant authority. This is true, but the authority is almost never relevant to forming a valid argument. It's just a shortcut. Take the following: "X is not Y. I am a subject expert on X and Y." It may be true that X is not Y. It may also be true that I know everything there is to know about X and Y. However, it's a completely invalid argument. There is no evidence provided about why X is not Y. If someone questions why is X not Y, providing more evidence of authority does not contribute to the discourse. It is definitely a fatal fallacy if you exchanging in meaningful discourse. If you are just looking for general knowledge on topics you are vaguely familiar with, receiving knowledge backed by statements of authority is okay. But that's okay because you aren't actually arguing, you are just seeking clarification and knowledge.
pfg 13y ago
Can't answer for Tarsnap specifically, but older (unaffected) OpenSSL versions are shipped by various distributions that are still supported, for example Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. There's nothing wrong with sticking to LTS releases IMO.
dekz 13y ago
SuSE Enterprise linux for example is still on 0.9.8, moving from 0.9.8 to 1.0 for a distro is a non trivial amount of work. Some of these distros are LTS, so the bug fixes are usually back ported. The latest 0.9.8 is y which is from Feburary 2013.
- ams6110 13y ago
  This is common for the "enterprise" distributions. They adopt new packages very slowly, preferring to backport security patches. Much to the aggravation of developers who want to be able to use the lates and greatest of something only to find that the RHEL production environment doesn't offer it.
  - dekz 13y ago
    Also it should be mentioned: OSX Mavericks has 0.9.8y
  - cperciva 13y ago
    Much to the aggravation of developers who want to be able to use the lates and greatest Upgrading OpenSSL introduces other problems though -- the OpenSSL developers don't seem to understand the concept of a "stable branch" or "binary compatibility", so importing a new version of OpenSSL can mean that everything which links against it has to be recompiled. This is one of the reasons why FreeBSD doesn't get major OpenSSL updates on stable branches -- our policy is that if a binary worked on X.0, you should be able to run it on all future X.* releases.
thefreeman 13y ago
there are multiple branches that are developed simultaneously and have bugfixes backported. My CentOS box is on 0.9.8.

by zck 13y ago

revelation 13y ago

Security fixes are usually backported for affected versions, and presumably Colin installed these updates. This depends on the distribution you choose and if you are running a release where they have guaranteed critical updates (i.e. Ubuntu LTS releases). What you do miss out on is new protocol support, which for TLS can be a huge problem when secure and compatible crypto options run out. (Sadly, people will usually err on the side of compatibility, which in the past boils down to the terrible RC4)

cperciva 13y ago

The Tarsnap website is running on FreeBSD 9, which gets OpenSSL bug fixes backported.

tptacek 13y ago

OpenSSL frequently hosts vulnerabilities that don't affect all users of TLS. If you pay attention to the updates (as Colin surely does), you can filter down to the updates that matter. It's a risky thing to do if you're not willing to own those judgement calls; I wouldn't recommend that most shops do that. Among other things, you need to eyeball the diffs.

X-Istence 13y ago
Or he is running an older version of FreeBSD that contains an older version of OpenSSL in the base.
- tptacek 13y ago
  For what it's worth: he's the former FreeBSD security officer, so I wouldn't worry too much about which version of FreeBSD he's using.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      "Argument by authority" is not a fatal fallacy. The key insight is appealing to an irrelevant authority. For example: Oprah says heartbleed is not a problem. Maybe she's right, maybe she's not. But appealing to her authority doesn't help because she's not an authority on this topic. Colin Percival knows a lot about FreeBSD security. This appeal to authority is much stronger, because Colin Percival is the former FreeBSD Security Officer, runs a security-conscious SaaS, provides security review and consulting services, publishes on security matters, has corrected major companies' security errors and has developed novel cryptographic algorithms.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Maybe the more precise way to say this is that an appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. It's especially not fallacious when the actual debate is about the person being appealed to. :)
      - hueving 13y ago
        I'm going to nitpick... >The key insight is appealing to an irrelevant authority. This is true, but the authority is almost never relevant to forming a valid argument. It's just a shortcut. Take the following: "X is not Y. I am a subject expert on X and Y." It may be true that X is not Y. It may also be true that I know everything there is to know about X and Y. However, it's a completely invalid argument. There is no evidence provided about why X is not Y. If someone questions why is X not Y, providing more evidence of authority does not contribute to the discourse. It is definitely a fatal fallacy if you exchanging in meaningful discourse. If you are just looking for general knowledge on topics you are vaguely familiar with, receiving knowledge backed by statements of authority is okay. But that's okay because you aren't actually arguing, you are just seeking clarification and knowledge.

pfg 13y ago

Can't answer for Tarsnap specifically, but older (unaffected) OpenSSL versions are shipped by various distributions that are still supported, for example Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. There's nothing wrong with sticking to LTS releases IMO.

dekz 13y ago

SuSE Enterprise linux for example is still on 0.9.8, moving from 0.9.8 to 1.0 for a distro is a non trivial amount of work. Some of these distros are LTS, so the bug fixes are usually back ported. The latest 0.9.8 is y which is from Feburary 2013.

ams6110 13y ago
This is common for the "enterprise" distributions. They adopt new packages very slowly, preferring to backport security patches. Much to the aggravation of developers who want to be able to use the lates and greatest of something only to find that the RHEL production environment doesn't offer it.
- dekz 13y ago
  Also it should be mentioned: OSX Mavericks has 0.9.8y
- cperciva 13y ago
  Much to the aggravation of developers who want to be able to use the lates and greatest Upgrading OpenSSL introduces other problems though -- the OpenSSL developers don't seem to understand the concept of a "stable branch" or "binary compatibility", so importing a new version of OpenSSL can mean that everything which links against it has to be recompiled. This is one of the reasons why FreeBSD doesn't get major OpenSSL updates on stable branches -- our policy is that if a binary worked on X.0, you should be able to run it on all future X.* releases.

thefreeman 13y ago

there are multiple branches that are developed simultaneously and have bugfixes backported. My CentOS box is on 0.9.8.