Aging and Bloated OpenSSL Is Purged of 2 High-Severity Bugs (arstechnica.com) 61
An anonymous reader cites a story on Ars Technica: Maintainers of the OpenSSL cryptographic library have patched high-severity holes that could make it possible for attackers to decrypt login credentials or execute malicious code on Web servers. The updates were released Tuesday morning for both versions 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 of OpenSSL, which a large portion of the Internet relies on to cryptographically protect sensitive Web and e-mail traffic using the transport layer security protocol. OpenSSL advisories labeled the severity of both vulnerabilities "high," meaning the updates fixing them should be installed as soon as possible. The fixes bring the latest supported versions to 1.0.1t and 1.0.2h. The decryption vulnerability is the result of what cryptographers call a padding oracle weakness, which allows attackers to repeatedly probe an encrypted payload for clues about the plaintext content inside. According to TLS expert Filippo Valsorda, the bug allows for only 16 bytes of encrypted traffic to be recovered, and even then only when an end user sends it repeatedly.
Purged, so it's no longer aged and bloated (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I use OpenSSL in an EBCDIC environment, you insensitive clod!
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)
1. LibreSSL has no FIPS mode. FIPS mode is kind of dumb, but it is required in some environments.
2. LibreSSL was effectively OpenBSD only for some time. The compatibility shims have been written for other oses now I think, but it hasn't been available for as long as you think.
3. Swapping SSL libraries is a major change, beyond what is appropriate for a point release. Conservative distros 9LTS type distros especially) will be using OpenSSL for years to come because it's too big of a change to attempt outside of a major version bump.
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)
Add to those reasons the knowledge that the "better alternative" had the same undiscovered bugs and that OpenSSL found them first.
Re: (Score:2)
Those specific ones were indeed present in LibreSSL, but many others were not. Also some of the bugs, even if present, were mitigated if using OpenBSD.
Re:Simple question (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is the flamebait title is disingenuous, as it wants to paint a picture that OpenSSL is stupid, and the heir apparent for those with that mindset is LibreSSL. Meanwhile, this specific scenario they want to hold up as evidence.... well it's no better than LibreSSL for these. Maybe the argument can be made in other ways, but here it's just bad form.
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, LibreSSL has avoided many CVE by getting rid of dangerous and bloated code. OpenSSL is indeed the choice of the uninformed and stupid, or those looking to check a government compliance box being not concerned with actual security.
Re: (Score:3)
> LibreSSL has avoided many CVE by getting rid of dangerous and bloated code
And discarded compatibility with many, if not most, of the platforms that OpenSSL supports.
Re: (Score:2)
And discarded compatibility with many, if not most, of the platforms that OpenSSL supports.
Fortunately many, if not most, of those platforms have been obsolete and out of production for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Many != all.
Re:Simple question (Score:4, Informative)
While that is true to some extent, decisions taken by the LibreSSL team has
prevented a lot of vulnerabilities [wikipedia.org].
Notably, none of the vulnerabilities found in OpenSSL and rated "High" were applicable to LibreSSL.
However (Score:2)
Google says that OpenSSL currently has 437,962 lines of code, while LibreSSL is down to 316,745 as I see by wc -l $(find . -name '*.[ch]') which likely eliminates some bugs.
LibreSSL also removes the unsafe memory management that has been roundly criticised in OpenSSL.
LibreSSL also introduces many new features, and is generally more capable on the platforms where it runs.
Anyone who is seriously interested in FIPS is on the NSS TLS library anyway (from Netscape/Mozilla), as it has far more certifications. Ope
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those 120k lines were lopped off when LibreSSL purged all the "deemed obsolescent" platforms that would never appear in binaries for LibreSSL's "useful" platforms? 90%? 95%?
I'm not opposed to replacing OpenSSL with LibreSSL, but the "OpenSSL is dead, everyone must move to LibreSSL" story that some are telling is false. OpenSSL started got a big shot of money & now has the ressources to audit their code, finding bugs like this one. Compare todays LibreSSL to todays OpenSSL, not the OpenSSL fr
Re: (Score:3)
They say FIPS and a secure, cleanly coded ssl library can't work, so who cares about some government-mandated 'standard'.
LibreSSL has been multi-platform for a year or so now, what are you smoking?
Switching to LibreSSL is no more than a binary (or source) package change as it has the same ABI/API as OpenSSL except for the retarded bits.
Re: (Score:2)
People who do projects for the government. On a lot of projects, it's FIPS or GTFO, which makes life miserable, but it's a fact of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple question (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is OpenSSL still being used? LibreSSL is a better alternative that was forked from OpenSSL a couple of years ago. Why is OpenSSL still around?
Why are the majority of bug fixes flowing from OpenSSL to LibreSSL and not the other way around?
Re: (Score:3)
>> Why are the majority of bug fixes flowing from OpenSSL to LibreSSL and not the other way around?
> Because there have hardly been any fixes in LibreSSL needed in the first place?
Because the original LibreSSL was not to add features. It was to discard unnecessary code from the forked version of OpenSSL. Shrinking a large project by 25%, as LibraSSL seems to have done successfully, can easily solve quite a few problems, especially the complex cross-platform components. But it doesn't automatically
Don't hold back (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell us how you really feel about OpenSSL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*BZZZZZZT* Wrong. OpenSSL isn't open source enough. [infoworld.com]
i've fallen and everyone's just laughing (Score:3)
Aging and Bloated OpenSSL Is Purged of 2 High-Severity Bugs
The way that headline is phrased makes me want to call the Elder Abuse Hotline.
Re: (Score:3)
When did OpenSSL stop beating its wife?
Truly open (Score:5, Funny)
What a coincidence (Score:3)
"We have released LibreSSL 2.3.4, which will be arriving in the
LibreSSL directory of your local OpenBSD mirror soon.
This release is based on the stable OpenBSD 5.9 branch.
* Fix multiple vulnerabilities in libcrypto relating to ASN.1 and encoding.
From OpenSSL."
Re: (Score:2)
What a coincidence
I'm not sure what your point is. Would you prefer that LibreSSL not acknowledge that OpenSSL found the bugs first? Are you implying that LibreSSL should have found the bugs first? Are you implying that there is no valid reason to prefer LibreSSL to OpenSSL given that LibreSSL clearly isn't perfect?
How about if you just come right out and say what you mean, instead of making me guess?
Looking at the history [wikipedia.org] it's clear that LibreSSL has had fewer issues than OpenSSL, especially of severity
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what your point is. Would you prefer that LibreSSL not acknowledge that OpenSSL found the bugs first? Are you implying that LibreSSL should have found the bugs first? Are you implying that there is no valid reason to prefer LibreSSL to OpenSSL given that LibreSSL clearly isn't perfect?
The point is they are all bad. Bragging about LibreSSL not being vulnerable to shit (In majority of instances affected feature stripped from software) is like two idiots fighting over who is smarter.
What would have impressed me is if LibreSSL took the time up front to re-architect software to be inherently more secure. Instead what they did was function level changes, delete features THEY didn't want along with trash much of the cross platform compatibility.
OpenSSL needs more than just a paint job. Libre
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for answering my question.
My understanding is that LibreSSL was intended to be a drop-in replacement for OpenSSL. The LibreSSL guys grumbled a lot about some of the quirks in the OpenSSL API, but they had to implement the same API to be a drop-in replacement. Also writing this sort of software can be tricky to get right, and for all its faults OpenSSL does have a lot of stuff done right. Overall I think forking was a sane choice.
Within the limits of my own knowledge, and what I know about OpenS
The value of Open Source. (Score:3)
"the bug was introduced in the 2013 patch"
Yep. With Open Source, there's a lot of eyes on code and this kinda stuff doesn't happen like it does with proprietary code.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. We fixed it in 3 years here. Now with proprietary code... well let's just say the first you'll find out about it is if someone is paid money to actively exploit it.
Now of interest is that the issue was discovered 2 days ago and is already fixed. How fast do proprietary companies react to critical vulnerabilities? I'll tell you in 5 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
I always laugh my ass off when the deeply religious offer prayers in response to inconvenient facts.
Or, to put it another way, your response is completely and utterly irrelevant to my statement. That sound you heard was my point whooshing far over your head.
Re: (Score:2)
I always laugh my ass off when the deeply religious offer prayers in response to inconvenient facts.
Yeah an inconvenient fact that a bug was fixed within a day of it being noticed, when the alternate is never finding it and not knowing how long it takes to fix with no guarantee that it ever does? PRAISE THE LORD STALLMAN!!!! FOR HE IS OUR SAVIOUR!!!!
Or, to put it another way, your response is completely and utterly irrelevant to my statement.
*Sigh* have you tried turning your brain off and on again?
Rename LibreSSl to OpenSSL (Score:2)
Can we get rid of this unmtained jumbled dinosaur with something more modern and actual ready for real e-commerce? Do we really need OpenVMS compability and it's own malloc() calls of LibreOSSL.
Unfortunately, we can't just expect all the system administrators and developers, and fortune 1000 companies to leave OpenSSL. Too much red tape and client contracts dictate OpenSSL and some software is coded to break if the string doesn't say "OpenSSL".
Re: (Score:1)
LibreSSL had these same defects.
Kill the old, in with a new (Score:2)
Thus I want a new easy to use library that only covers the latest and has a clear path for moving forward.
Part of that path could be a method for abandoning various protocols/standards so that they leave the core library but are available for p
Re: (Score:2)
> And I'd like a pony to sprinkle fairy dust on me that I snort up and change gender.
This is probably the strangest place to announce your wish to change genders, but we of slashdot will defend to the death your right to make that decision. Good luck to you, future brother or sister.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want some backward compatable OpenSSL such as LibreSSL
You can choose between GNTTLS, NSS, and a handful of others.
I want something entirely new,
New code = new bugs
It also won't help with the thousands of programs written against the OpenSSL API. The libreSSL library provides a mostly compatible API, so those old programs get the benefit of new security and is providing a new API so they can be slowly migrated.