

OpenSSL Security Advisory - laumars
https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20141015.txt

======
thibaut_barrere
Took me a bit to find out so sharing it here: one RSS for these announces is
here
[http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.openssl.announce](http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.openssl.announce)
\- plug this into Boxcar, IFTTT etc to get push notifications.

~~~
charliepark
Here's an RSS -> Email recipe off this RSS feed, in case it's easier for
folks. [https://ifttt.com/recipes/212315-get-openssl-alerts-from-
gma...](https://ifttt.com/recipes/212315-get-openssl-alerts-from-gmane-
delivered-to-your-inbox)

~~~
xorcist
Or you could just subscribe to openssl-announce.

It might not be as cool as having an email notification sent by an ifttt
recipe executed in the cloud which in turn polls an RSS service regularly
which is updated by incoming emails from openssl-announce, but it might just
be a tad bit more reliable.

------
justcommenting
kudos to the akamai team for reporting the --nossl3 option issue in
CVE-2014-3568.

really makes you wonder what else is lurking in openssl when options don't
actually do what they say they do. as phk put it, openssl is the crown jewel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcl17Q0bpk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcl17Q0bpk)

~~~
peterwwillis
There is no testing of whether a disabled feature actually gets disabled. The
only openssl test cases that exist are explicitly to test that a feature
works, not that it doesn't work.

The 'test' directory of openssl is just a big pile of giant C programs and
shell scripts which make up the test cases, and a lot of the features and
options are piled together, and there's no documentation. There isn't even an
indication of which test case fails when one does fail. I don't see how anyone
could get an idea from this of whether a feature works as expected or not, or
how many regressions you might have between releases or after new features. As
is typical of openssl, it's a big mess.

~~~
justcommenting
agreed--as phk put it in his operation orchestra talk (link in previous post)
regarding openssl: 1)API is a nightmare, 2)documentation is deficient and
misleading, and 3) defaults are deceptive kudos again to the akamai team for
reporting the bug.

------
xorcist
I can not find any distribution updates yet, neither for Red Hat nor Debian.

Am I just stupid or are they not out yet? I guess I've been spoiled by the
many embargoed and coordinated releases that was made recently.

------
monstermonster
What I really want to know is does this affect LibreSSL?

That would be an interesting comparison.

~~~
laumars
I assume you're referring to the memory leaks (CVE-2014-3513 & CVE-2014-3567)?
(as there's a few items being patched).

My guess is that it doesn't since OpenSSL use a bespoke memory allocator /
deallocator which, if I recall correctly, was one of the things that Theo de
Raadt was criticising OpenSSL over.

The TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV patch (re POODLE) was ported from BoringSSL (Google's
fork of OpenSSL) to address TLS 1.0 downgrading to SSL 3.0. From what I
understand, and I might be wrong on this, this is a protocol issue rather than
a bug with specific SSL libraries. So LibreSSL might also see a similar
TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV patch applied.

~~~
Kalium
POODLE is a protocol design issue, yes. In short, the padding is not covered
by the MAC.

