[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:56:46 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: openssl timing attack
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:24:23AM +0200, Tomas Hoger wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 02:52:41 +0400 Solar Designer wrote:
>
> > Question to OpenSSL developers: is the patch given in Billy Bob
> > Brumley and Nicola Tuveri's paper "Remote Timing Attacks Are Still
> > Practical" OK to be used by distros? Basically, I am interested in
> > its "review status" by upstream - reviewed and approved, reviewed but
> > not approved for specific reasons, not sufficiently reviewed. (The
> > patch is tiny, but even tiny changes might have non-obvious
> > implications.)
>
> I'm not part of the group you directed this question too, but as I've
> not seen any upstream developer or list in CC...
Yes, I did not CC. Maybe I should have. I thought that we had some
OpenSSL folks in here.
> The fix from the paper was committed in openssl CVS within about a week
> from public disclosure:
>
> http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=20892
>
> However, there were some concerns raised regarding the extra #ifdef
> wrapping added as part of the commit, which disable the fix by default,
> and the name suggests #ifndef was probably intended:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-dev@openssl.org/msg29283.html
This helps.
Are you dealing with the issue for Red Hat products? Perhaps you have a
Bugzilla entry?
Thank you!
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
