Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenSSL Security Advisory

openssl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#31

Post by peterwwillis »

rdl wrote: post #19
jgrahamc wrote: post #15

Since most(1) web browsers do not use OpenSSL, CVE-2014-0224 is not going to be a big concern for people browsing using SSL, but it is a concern for machine-to-machine communication where using OpenSSL on both ends will be common. Given that this also affects 0.9.8 there are going to be lots of backend systems that need upgrading. (1) Apparently Chrome on Android is the odd man out in using OpenSSL, but I don't know…

This should be interesting for OpenVPN.

I think people underestimate how many products use OpenSSL...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2143440/server-makers-rushing... http://www.networkworld.com/article/2176022/router/heartblee...

It sounds kind of stupid, but i'm thinking the best short-term way to secure an exposed OpenVPN tunnel against future OpenSSL TLS holes may be two layers of encrypted traffic. One static key tunnel to prevent public TLS holes from exposing the installation, and inside that a strong TLS 1.2 implementation with perfect forward secrecy. It's lame and limited (due to the requirement on the static key) but could work for black-box implementations where you don't have much choice in your use of the product. Some cheap hacks to the source of OpenVPN may even allow both of these to be stacked without requiring two tunnels.

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#32

Post by johnkeeping »

kerneis wrote: post #25
reaperhulk wrote: post #13

Logos are now prerequisite, so of course CVE-2014-0224 has you covered. http://ccsinjection.lepidum.co.jp If you want to see the patches they're now up on GitHub: OpenSSL 1.0.1: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/OpenSSL_1_0_1-sta... OpenSSL 1.0.0: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/OpenSSL_1_0_0-sta... OpenSSL 0.9.8: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/OpenSSL_0_9_8-sta...

"Q. How did you find this bug? A. This bug was discovered by Masashi Kikuchi of Lepidum. He found this bug while studying safe TLS implementations using a proof assistant system Coq." So they are starting to find actual bugs with Coq? I'm impressed, and would love to know if anybody has more details (lepidum's blog seems down at the moment).

The ImperialViolet post linked above gives a different URL for the blog post which does work: http://ccsinjection.lepidum.co.jp/blog/2014-06-05/CCS-Inject...

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#36

Post by tedunangst »

pling wrote: post #26

Interested to see if LibreSSL has knocked these ones on the head.

Two of them, CVE-2014-0198 and CVE-2010-5298. We haven't even started looking at the protocol code.

I'll also note that "This flaw only affects multithreaded applications using OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1, where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is enabled, which is not the default and not common." is pretty misleading. nginx is affected, is not multithreaded, but is fairly common.

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#37

Post by danielweber »

zekenie wrote: post #33

Is it recommended to cycle ssl certs?

From http://ccsinjection.lepidum.co.jp/

Q. Do I have to re-create my private keys or certificates?

A. No. Attackers cannot steal your private keys through this bug itself. However if you have transferred your private keys via paths protected by SSL/TLS, the keys could be sniffed. If this is the case, consider regenerating the keys or certificates.

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#38

Post by mdtancsa »

reaperhulk wrote: post #11

Debian advisory: https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2014/msg00... Red Hat 6 advisory: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0625.html Red Hat 5 advisory: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0624.html Ubuntu advisory: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-security-announce/2...

And FreeBSD

http://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-14:14....

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#39

Post by woodrow »

peterwwillis wrote: post #31
rdl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be interesting for OpenVPN.

I think people underestimate how many products use OpenSSL... http://www.pcworld.com/article/2143440/server-makers-rushing... http://www.networkworld.com/article/2176022/router/heartblee... It sounds kind of stupid, but i'm thinking the best short-term way to secure an exposed OpenVPN tunnel against future OpenSSL TLS holes may be two layers of encrypted traffic. One static key tunnel to prevent public TLS holes from…

OpenVPN already sort of supports this: https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Hardening#Useof--...

While it does not provide additional encryption, it does prevent clients who do not know the secret from initiating connections (and thus interacting with the TLS state machine/etc).

Re: OpenSSL Security Advisory

#40

Post by pling »

tedunangst wrote: post #36
pling wrote: post #26

Interested to see if LibreSSL has knocked these ones on the head.

Two of them, CVE-2014-0198 and CVE-2010-5298. We haven't even started looking at the protocol code. I'll also note that "This flaw only affects multithreaded applications using OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1, where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is enabled, which is not the default and not common." is pretty misleading. nginx is affected, is not multithreaded, but is fairly common.

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly why I have more faith in you guys with LibreSSL. You're right on the case, know what's going on all the time and communications are good (as they always are with the OpenBSD project). Please keep up the great work.
Post reply on HN