On Apr 10, 2014, at 12:36 PM, ari edelkind <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> Quite right. It is reasonable to assume that, given what we now know about >> the memory allocation scheme in OpenSSL, that other bugs exist and will >> only be found by exploits. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that there will >> be future emergencies like Heartbleed related to bugs in OpenSSL. >> > > I'm guessing you read a popular post by Theo de Raadt that's been going > around. Sorry, but OpenBSD's bastardized memory allocation scheme would > not have solved this; OpenSSL's malloc implementation was not to blame > here. I have heard from others, less interested in self-aggrandizement than Theo, that OpenSSL's malloc was significantly to blame. I'm not saying OpenBSD's is better, just that I have heard from multiple sources that OpenSSL malloc-wrapping both hides some bugs and makes them hard to find with automated tools. > Amateurish failure to check the sanity of user-supplied input was to > blame. Yes. > Idiotic, error-prone protocol specifications, written by > non-programmers, were to blame. Not in this case. > OpenSSL's allocator, in this instance, > worked fine -- even if it isn't the optimal choice for all operating > systems. Maybe; I'm certainly not in a position to say either way. > If your reliance on OpenSSL bugs being fixed requires a fix at a rate >> faster than what the FreeBSD community provides, then you should not rely >> on the FreeBSD community. > > > Or just make sure that all of your running services link to the OpenSSL > library built from ports. While i'm not exactly thrilled with the prospect > of waiting a significant amount of time for a vulnerability in the base > distribution to be officially patched, relying on the base system for > something like that is a bit like taking a tank to the racetrack. Updates to ports are inherently slower than patches from the OpenSSL team. My point is not that either ports or distribution are "too slow" for everyone: it is that if you are sure you need something faster than them, there is another option. >> Install OpenSSL on your mission-critical systems from OpenSSL source, not >> from FreeBSD ports or packages. > > > This is a poor idea from a maintenance standpoint. Firstly, the ports > system was updated fairly quickly, ....but not necessarily quick enough for the people complaining about the response speed of the FreeBSD team... > but aside from that, updating an > existing port yourself to download and install the next version is usually > a trivial task. And you get package management for free. Again: the whole point of this thread are people who apparently need more speed, demanding that someone be paid to make things faster for them. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"