12 ms·
OpenSSL Security Advisory
- perlgeek 12y agoHow do they know that those segfaults aren't exploitable for arbitrary code execution?
- tux3 12y agoMost of the DoS vulnerabilities appear to be null pointer dereferences, those are not exploitable simply because the attacker has no control over the pointer, it's always just null and it always crashes 'cleanly'. The same goes for the DoS-by-assert, those just kill the program, no direct chance for exploitation there. The memory corruptions and use-after-frees are a bit more worrying, but they look pretty hard to trigger in real life. Of course you should still upgrade asap, if that's the reason you're asking.
- ctz 12y agoWrites through a null (or low valued) pointer can actually be easily exploitable on some embedded systems. https://cansecwest.com/csw07/Vector-Rewrite-Attack.pdf https://cansecwest.com/csw07/Vector-Rewrite-Attack.pdf
- tptacek 12y agoThey're easily exploitable if (a) they're writes, (b) they're arbitrary, (c) they're targeting an architecture with an IVT mapped at 0x0, and (d) they're in code that can actually write the IVT (ie, an RTOS, or kernel code). That's a pretty rare set of circumstances. NULL pointer writes are also exploitable in the general case if they're offset, but none of these appear to be.
- fulafel 12y agoAlso in many other circumstsances on general purpouse operating systems like Windows, Linux, OS X. There are a zillion examples just a web search away. Many well publicized and documented high profile RCE NULL vulns in browsers, Flash, kernels etc.
- archimedespi 12y agoHow bad will this actually be?
- nmc 12y agoAs techscruggs put it [0], the ClientHello sigalgs DoS vulnerability does not seem to facilitate unauthorized access. It may allow malicious parties to take you down, but not get in your system. The other big one is the RSA silently downgrades to EXPORT_RSA thingy. This is the now famous SMACK TLS [1], disclosed 2 weeks ago by researchers from INRIA, IMDEA, and MicroSoft. Most of the software is getting patched (OpenSSL already has) but still very scary. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9231958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9231958 [1] https://www.smacktls.com https://www.smacktls.com
- techscruggs 12y agoSo, this exploit allows for a Denial of Service Attack. While this does mean a single person could bring down your site, it does not appear that it will allow someone to gain access to your server via this exploit.
- techscruggs 12y agoAlso, this is only an issue if you are running version 1.0.2. It doesn't affect any other version.
- sjs382 12y agoOther CVEs in the bulletin affect other versions.
- orblivion 12y agoThat's just the first of two high severity, right? The other sounds like Freakattack, but upgraded in severity. Perhaps others could correct me.
- danieldk 12y agoBut the second high severity vulnerability was already known and fixed in most systems. E.g. Debian: https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3125 https://www.debian.org/security/2015/dsa-3125 If this isn't patched on somebodies machine yet, they're doing something wrong ;). (Has Apple patched this yet?)
- orblivion 12y agoWhen Freak Attack came out, all I ever saw was about how to manually disable the export ciphers. So they finally come out with a fix to disallow them in the program?
- baby 12y agoIt is exactly that
- mukyu 12y agoWasn't loading for me: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Qq6SFiDF http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Qq6SFiDF changelog: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=zeuMLdS1 http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=zeuMLdS1
- jgrahamc 12y agoLibreSSL sync: https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd/commit/7cd43a391fc4972fb5c79acbcf70d430ded5228a https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd/commit/7cd43a39...
- tripl 12y agoMirror http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=ycxrFtXf http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=ycxrFtXf
- thresh 12y agotl;dr: nothing serious.
- Nusyne 12y agoRelevant fixes have been commited to OpenBSD https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677386615089&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677386615089&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677382215078&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677382215078&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677372515025&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677372515025&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677368815015&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=142677368815015&w=2
- clarry 12y agoSo 4 out of 14 needed fixing in -current, while the rest were either already fixed or not relevant to libressl. It would be interesting to know who fixed the ones that were fixed already, and when.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- vog 12y agoI guess that most of these were "fixed" by simply throwing away lots of garbage code from OpenSSL during the evolution of LibreSSL.
- oskarth 12y agoThere are no quotation marks about it; it still counts.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoDon't undersell that man, priority zero in security is reducing the threat surface.
- vog 12y agoYou may be interested in the experience report of Ted Unangst about fixing security issues in OpenBSD: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/making-security-sausage http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/making-security-sausage
- ca98am79 12y agoAWS statement about it: http://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/openssl-security-advisory---march-2015/ http://aws.amazon.com/security/security-bulletins/openssl-se...
- bshimmin 12y agoAnyone able to find an announcement from Rackspace? (I'm also an AWS customer so thank you for posting the above, which I'm certain would've been a considerable challenge for me to find!)
- ilikepi 12y agoIn the past they've posted advisories in their "Security & Vulnerabilities" forum[1], but I don't see one for this particular issue yet. [1]: https://community.rackspace.com/general/f/53 https://community.rackspace.com/general/f/53
- briancurtin 12y agoThere's a small note on https://status.rackspace.com/ https://status.rackspace.com/ right now: > Open SSL Security Advisory > Rackspace is aware and tracking the security advisory released by the Open SSL Community. We're closely monitoring the situation and evaluating any relevant actions. > For more information regarding the specific details around the vulnerability please visit https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20150319.txt https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20150319.txt > Posted on March 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM
- bshimmin 12y agoThanks (both) - status.rackspace.com is where I was hoping/expecting an update to be. Looks like I don't need to start calling my clients just yet!
- Techbrunch 12y agoQuick question I have subscribed to the RSS and receive emails thanks to IFTTT but why don't Amazon send also those emails ? Do they only send an email if you have to take some actions ? Edit: You can find the recipe I'm using here: https://ifttt.com/recipes/270862-amazon-security-bulletins-to-email https://ifttt.com/recipes/270862-amazon-security-bulletins-t...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deanclatworthy 12y agoAny tips for us hobbyist VPS owners running Debian 7? Latest version on a brand new digitalocean instantance is 1.0.1e! No sign of f,g,h,i or today's k.
- 0x0 12y agoThese patches are included in 1.0.1e-2+deb7u15
- staz 12y agoAs 0x0 says they are in 1.0.1e-2+deb7u15 which was just released a few minutes ago. If you would like to know all the security update for debian you can subscribe to the mailing list: debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org See https://www.debian.org/security/ https://www.debian.org/security/ Be warned however that they send mail every few days and you have to read them to know which update is needed on your system. On the other hand you can use Debian automatic upgrade system: unattended-upgrade. Which will update your system for security update. It does so every night so you won't have security update asap but if you update within the day it's generally okay
- eloy 12y agohttps://filippo.io/psa-enable-automatic-updates-please/ https://filippo.io/psa-enable-automatic-updates-please/ I can also recommend to enable automatic updates. It won't hurt, and if it does, it will be far less than a hacked server can cause in amount of damage.
- webjunkie01 12y agoAFAIK you should look into the "built on:" line. If the date is: Tue Mar 17 21:30:08 UTC 2015, then the the package is already updated.
- rlpb 12y agoDistributions generally backport security fixes, so a plain comparison of upstream version numbers won't generally work. You need to understand your distribution's versioning scheme and check package changelogs. However, distributions generally release updates to their stable releases. Just install them. Installing security updates automatically is even better (better to have the occasional rare regression than a compromise and have to re-deploy the whole server).
- 0x0 12y agoDebian patches: https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2015/msg00082.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2015/msg00... Don't forget to manually restart affected services, check with "checkrestart -v" from the "debian-goodies" package if necessary.
- alricb 12y agoSix vulnerabilities in the X509/ASN.1 code! Inconceivable!
- moe 12y agoInconceivable! Not really if you've ever had to work with ASN.1... (shudder)
- alricb 12y agoNow now, there's an LL(1) parser for ASN.1, and it's easily found in the following reference: Fouquart (P.), Dubuisson (O.) and Duwez (F.). - Une analyse syntaxique d'ASN.1:1994. - Internal Report RP/LAA/EIA/83, France Télécom R&D, March 1996. Only in French
- dfox 12y agoIn the first place, LL(1) parser for BER/DER is mostly trivial exercise, although somewhat tedious. Problem with ASN.1 is not with the specification itself but mostly in the fact that many people want to parse BER/DER with code that directly populates some application-specific data structure and depends on ASN.1 syntax of what they expect to parse. With that you invariably get very complex interface between parser library and application where both components have to handle various special cases correctly (to the point that the whole thing is not even leaky abstraction, because it almost isn't abstraction at all).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- MichaelGG 12y agoThey're mostly DoSes, which rank a bit less as a vulnerability. If I know a world leader is going to a city and call in a bomb threat, yeah I disrupted things but it's a rather qualitatively different attack. These don't seem to be directly in the ASN.1 code, but the consumer of such code, right? (Apart from the boolean compare?) That's probably just the result of having complicated structures to deal with, and no type system to tell you when you've made a bad assumption. And even with a good type system, you can still opt-in to explicitly failing. Code like "let x = foo.Value.bar // foo must have a value at this point" isn't totally uncommon. You can statically analyze and know which points will fail at runtime, but without exceptions, if any logic error counts as a vulnerability (because it kills the process), then we're basically saying the bar is perfect code, right? With exceptions you'd just wrap the whole thing up and catch any such logic errors and save the process and destruct the socket. It seems like that'd have been a mitigation here (assuming structures aren't reused and sockets are exception safe).
- rdl 12y agoWe pushed an update on CloudFlare. This wasn't anywhere near as bad as some of the previous vulnerabilities. https://blog.cloudflare.com/openssl-security-advisory-of-19-march-2015/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/openssl-security-advisory-of-19-...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rsuelzer 12y agoIs this site down for anyone else? Would be ironic if they didn't patch their own servers and got DDossed
- flavmartins 12y agoWe've posted an update on the DigiCert blog: https://blog.digicert.com/openssl-patches-security-vulnerabilities-2/ https://blog.digicert.com/openssl-patches-security-vulnerabi... No affect on any issued SSL Certificates, that's always a positive.
- Sevzinn 12y agoMinimum bounty of $2500 [0]. Those not lucky enough to be a citizen of Germany or other first-world country would be more lured by the dollar amount. As a US citizen, I'd be more interested in putting the fact that I got paid to fix a bug on a CV. [0] https://hackerone.com/openssl https://hackerone.com/openssl
- fallat 12y agoI think money incentives are so good. Gives those blackhats a reason to help.
- joliss 12y agoI found the matching git commits for each vulnerability: http://www.solitr.com/blog/2015/03/openssl-vulnerability-breakdown/ http://www.solitr.com/blog/2015/03/openssl-vulnerability-bre...
- nine_k 12y agoI'm waiting for an open SSL library implementation in Rust. A language that statically checks for impossibility of null-pointer references (let alone out-of-bounds access) seems very apt for a critical and intensely-attacked library like this.
- ilikepi 12y agoHere's RedHat's roundup article on which of their supported products are impacted by which CVE: https://access.redhat.com/articles/1384453 https://access.redhat.com/articles/1384453 Yay for being on the trailing edge...
- BoppreH 12y agoBy my count 12 out of the 14 vulnerabilities in this advisory are due to manual memory management. And past ones were similar. This is security critical code, being developed and polished for more than a decade, and the only thing protecting the privacy of millions (billions?) of people. If any public project should have gotten this right, it should be this. Yet it can't. Is this time to admit we simply can't do manual memory management at this level and move to something else? I know the performance boost is tempting, but I think we can't afford the consequences.
- dtech 12y agoIt's mainly due to OpenSSL doing exceptionally poor manual memory management. Lot's of the LibreSSL changes have involved removing that.
- BoppreH 12y agoFlash Player, Adobe Reader, JVM, etc etc etc. I don't think it's a localized problem. And we only have so many people with the skills of the LibreSSL team to go around.
- dtech 12y agoSo you're suggesting that the solution to manual memory managment bugs in the JVM is to use a memory managed language? The memory management will have to be done manually at some point.
- rurban 12y agoOpenSSL has not even a testsuite or build tool helpers to help finding those simple bugs, usually found with normal build and test methods, such a valgrind or AddressSanitizer. Insanity prevails.
- stephen_g 12y agoPart of the problem was that they were (are?) using their own memory allocator, which was not only had been the source of many security vulnerabilities, but also broke Valgrind! That was one of the first things the LibreSSL team ripped out.
- slim 12y ago> This issue was reported to OpenSSL on 22nd October 2014 by Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA. The fix was developed by Stephen Henson of the OpenSSL core team. It was previously announced in the OpenSSL security advisory on 8th January 2015. which means they ignored CVE-2015-0204 for 6 months
- yellowapple 12y ago3 months. The fix was implemented in January. Its severity was simply upgraded.
- a-dub 12y agoBetween openssl-1.0.1k/l and openssl-1.0.1m, a major automated code reformatting was applied. Over 700,000 lines of code appear to have changed. (with whitespace ignored) They've supplied tags to identify the start and the end of the code reformatting, but it's completely unclear if anyone has verified that they do not result in built binary changes. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/02/11/code-reformat-finished/ https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/02/11/code-reformat-f...
- iso8859-1 12y agoIf it's possible to do deterministic builds of OpenSSL, it should be pretty easy to verify that, no?
- 0x0 12y agoThat's quite heavy-handed. Funny that the reformatting actually broke the build for some configurations, even going unnoticed for a while(!!!). I'm glad I'm not a downstream maintainer having to deal with all that! :O In fact.. If even a failing build weren't immediately discovered, what are the chances there haven't been introduced other bugs (that wouldn't fail to compile)?