Live data from Hacker News

The Heartbleed Bug

heartbleed.com

11–20 of 547 posts

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#11

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

apt-get update && apt-get -t testing install openssl yields OpenSSL 1.0.1f on Debian sigh

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#12

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

It does take time for these things to be tested and deployed. Regardless of severity of bug, distributions must test packages before sending them out to all their users.

It would be unfortunate if a new package were to be released immediately only to be soon masked/recalled due to unforeseen consequences.

Of note, the Gentoo package was bumped approximately 2 hours after the advisory was published.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#14
Great writeup but I guess I'm still a bit confused. As someone responsible for rails servers I can see that I need to update nginx and openssl as soon as packages become available or compile myself. What about keys though? Do I need to get our SSL certs re-issued? regenerate SSH keys? Anything else that I should be doing?

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#15
Does SSH (specifically sshd) on major OSes use affected versions of OpenSSL? [answer pulled up from replies below: since sshd doesn't use TLS protocol, it isn't affected by this bug, even if it does use affected OpenSSL versions]

What's the quickest check to see if sshd, or any other listening process, is vulnerable?

(For example, if "lsof | grep ssl" only shows 0.9.8-ish version numbers, is that a good sign?)

Post reply on HN