[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:17 -0400
From: Donald Stufft <donald@...fft.io>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Another Python app (rhn-setup: rhnreg_ks) not checking hostnames in certs properly CVE-2015-1777
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2015 10:18 AM, John Haxby wrote:
>> I think there's a misunderstanding here. I was asking for cooperation
>> to come up with a solution, participating with other people who, like,
>> I assumed, Red Hat, have an interest in solving this specific problem
>> without breaking existing (admitedly flawed) applications. I know it's
>> not straightforward, if it was I'd've just produced a patch. I'm still
>> happy to work with anyone to sort this out.
>
> Me too. But I trust Nick and he's smart. I don't stick my finger into
> every security pie because 1) I'm not an expert in all things and 2) I
> have a finite life span and need to sleep.
>
> So again my advice is: work with upstream/the community. You don't need
> my input yet. Nick has spent far, far, far more time thinking about how
> to fix Python/SSL/TLS then I ever will. Once you have a definitive
> solution that you are pretty sure works, then please, by all means poke me.
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I am actually working on something that will hopefully provide a
>>> better solution (for values of speed and ease of fixing flaws) than
>>> a traditional audit/code fix, (I'd rather address entire classes
>>> of security flaw rather than one instance of the flaw at a time).
>>> But like all things security infinite workload delays specific
>>> projects.
>>
>> If this fixes the specific problem as a side effect that would be
>> great. Details are lacking though, and there's no obvious link here
>> to making adapting PEP-466 for backwards compatibility (and I have
>> absolutely no arguments with the rejected solutions for Python).
>
> This is a different project and related to web interfaces (which are a
> growing pain point security wise).
>
>>
>> This is my last message on the list on the subject.
>>
>> jch
>>
>
> --
> Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
> PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
If you want opt in better security, a little bit of monkey patching and
a module on PyPI would fix that. The reason PEP 466 rejected something on
PyPI is because it was opt in and we didn’t consider opt in to be a good
enough fix for upstream Python.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
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.
