The Heartbleed Bug

#1

Post by tptacek » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 7:57 PM UTC

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#2

Post by cheald » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:31 PM UTC

What a great writeup. Comprehensive without being overly verbose, answers to "what does this mean?" and "does this affect me?", and clear calls to action.

While I'm not happy at having to spend my Monday patching a kajillion machines, I welcome more vulnerability writeups in this vein.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#3

Post by mpyne » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:45 PM UTC

Whoa, this seems horrifying.

One (selfish) question I have is whether this can affect primary key material stored in an HSM. I'm assuming not, but that the session key generated by the HSM would still be susceptible.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#4

Post by ineedtosleep » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:47 PM UTC

A couple more data points:

I'm running Fedora 19 and Arch on my main dev machines/VMs and as of this posting are considered up-to-date. Both are vulnerable:

    [Fedora19] $ openssl version
    OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013

    [Arch] $ openssl version
    OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#5

Post by zmillman » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:47 PM UTC

Does anyone know how Amazon's Elastic Load Balancers are affected? I can't find anything on the AWS site

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#6

Post by sjs382 » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

ineedtosleep wrote: post #4

A couple more data points: I'm running Fedora 19 and Arch on my main dev machines/VMs and as of this posting are considered up-to-date. Both are vulnerable: [Fedora19] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 [Arch] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014

Likewise for Ubuntu 13.10: OpenSSL 1.0.1e 11 Feb 2013

And the current beta of 14.04: OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#7

Post by cheald » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

ineedtosleep wrote: post #4

A couple more data points: I'm running Fedora 19 and Arch on my main dev machines/VMs and as of this posting are considered up-to-date. Both are vulnerable: [Fedora19] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 [Arch] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014

Yeah, I haven't seen any new RPMs for RHEL/CentOS/Fedora yet. Kinda concerning, since I'd expect vendors to be given advance notice and the chance to prep updates to coincide with the announcement.

All my RHEL5 boxes are running 0.9.8, though, at least.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#8

Post by Dorian-Marie » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

ineedtosleep wrote: post #4

A couple more data points: I'm running Fedora 19 and Arch on my main dev machines/VMs and as of this posting are considered up-to-date. Both are vulnerable: [Fedora19] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 [Arch] $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014

Not affected directly on Mac OS:

    OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#9

Post by iso8859-1 » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

Here's the patch/commit, I don't know why it's not linked form the OpenSSL changelog or heartbleed.com. A suspicious lack of transparency.

http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=...

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#10

Post by ctz » Mon, Apr 07, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #3

Whoa, this seems horrifying. One (selfish) question I have is whether this can affect primary key material stored in an HSM. I'm assuming not, but that the session key generated by the HSM would still be susceptible.

If you are using a HSM your long-term authenticity key won't be in the memory space of the process with openssl inside it. So that should be OK.

However, everything else in that process (like, all the traffic you were hoping to protect) is basically toast.