Live data from Hacker News

The Heartbleed Bug

heartbleed.com

61–70 of 547 posts

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#61
post #51

Given the severity of this bug, the UX of the site is failing anyone who isn't a fulltime sysadmin. Suggestion: big, bold TLDR ("The sky is falling. Check your OpenSSL version right now") with a link on what to do sorted by OS vendor. Step 1: Here's a command to spit out your OpenSSL version. If it is the following string, go to step 2. Step 2: Here's how to update your OpenSSL. Here are links to guides on reissuing…

Agreed. They should reorder their headings, first should be What is it? and second should be How to stop it?

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#62

As of now (21:04 UTC) this isn't fixed in Debian https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-0160 nor Ubuntu http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/2014/CVE-20... Got a long night ahead :/

I just did a apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and I saw upgrades for openssh-client and openssh-server.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#63
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not affected directly on Mac OS: OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013

[deleted]

I think you have a third party OpenSSL installed. On an unmodified 10.9.2 you get:

    $ sw_vers
    ProductName:	Mac OS X
    ProductVersion:	10.9.2
    BuildVersion:	13C64
    $ openssl version
    OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 Feb 2013

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#65
post #62

As of now (21:04 UTC) this isn't fixed in Debian https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-0160 nor Ubuntu http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/2014/CVE-20... Got a long night ahead :/

I just did a apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and I saw upgrades for openssh-client and openssh-server.

OpenSSH != OpenSSL. Those upgrades are for a different vulnerability in OpenSSH.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#66

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

Unless you installed the macports version, which is 1.0.1f

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#67

As of now (21:04 UTC) this isn't fixed in Debian https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-0160 nor Ubuntu http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/2014/CVE-20... Got a long night ahead :/

1.0.1e-2+deb7u5 appearing now on security.debian.org.

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#69
post #48
post #39

This thing has been in the wild for two years. What are the odds it hasn't been systematically abused? And what does this imply? To me it sounds kind of like finding out the fence in your backyard was cut open two years ago. Except in this case the backyard is two thirds of the internet.

Worse, it's retroactively unfixable: Even doing all this [revoking certs, new secret keys, new certificates] will still leave any traffic intercepted by the attacker in the past still vulnerable to decryption. So it would be a good idea to change all your passwords to critical services like email and banks, once they have issued new certs and updated their openssl.

Shouldn't Perfect Forward Secrecy protect against exactly this kind of scenario where the server's primary keys are compromised?

Re: The Heartbleed Bug

#70
post #17

[deleted]

No, Bitcoin doesn't use SSL/TLS. It could have implications for Bitcoin web services that use HTTPS, of course.

Yes, Bitcoin the system/protocol doesn't inherently use TLS.

But, with the "rpcssl=1" option, the reference Bitcoin client's RPC interface would be using SSL, and specifically OpenSSL.

I'd guess a ton of online Bitcoin services reliant on hot wallets do this. So cue the thefts, or 'thefts', any minute now.

Post reply on HN