Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:46:43 +0000
From: tapper <lancett01@...glemail.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Curious about the security of my router fermwair.

Thanks very much for this I will pass this on to the devs. I don't see 
this being much of a problem I will make a pr. I scanned my device with 
nmap and didn't find any thing open that should not be so that makes me 
happy :)


On 21/12/2016 20:07, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:39:26AM +0000, tapper wrote:
>> 	Hi my name is Jonathan. I don't know if this is the write place to ask
>> about this but here gos.
>
> It's not the usual use of this list but I suspect you won't upset many
> people either.
>
>> I would like to know if any one would like to have a poke around at the
>> third party router firmware I use on my router called Gargoyle.
>
> The first item I found in about one minute of inspection is that they
> include an utterly ancient version of ffmpeg:
>
> https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargoyle/blob/master/package/ffmpeg/Makefile#L10
>
> PKG_NAME:=ffmpeg
> PKG_VERSION:=2.4.4
> PKG_RELEASE:=1
>
> PKG_SOURCE:=$(PKG_NAME)-$(PKG_VERSION).tar.bz2
> PKG_SOURCE_URL:=http://ffmpeg.org/releases/
> PKG_MD5SUM:=7e2819c71484ffba1ba1a91dd5285643
>
> The 2.4 branch of ffmpeg ended with version 2.4.13 on 2016-02-02. Not
> only are they nine point releases behind, they are also drastically
> behind on shipping newer versions entirely. (The latest version upstream
> is numbered 3.2.2. That's seven minor versions behind, too.) Granted,
> new versions bring new bugs, but picking one point in time two years
> ago and then never updating is trouble.
>
> I didn't spot any security fixes for ffmpeg in the patches-generic or
> patches-old directories, but perhaps they just weren't clearly labeled.
>
> Another concerning point is the use of md5 to validate the download. While
> use of md5 as a 'better crc32' is well established, most cryptographic
> authorities are saying it's time to replace md5's replacement, sha-1.
> They're two hash functions behind the times.
>
> A full review would take far more time than I have to offer but the
> initial impression is that it needs a serious refresh of its dependencies.
>
> Thanks
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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.