Slashdot Mirror
Not Just Apple: GnuTLS Bug Means Security Flaw For Major Linux Distros
According to an article at Ars Technica, a major security bug faces Linux users, akin to the one recently found in Apple's iOS (and which Apple has since fixed). Says the article:"The bug is the result of commands in a section of the GnuTLS code that verify the authenticity of TLS certificates, which are often known simply as X509 certificates. The coding error, which may have been present in the code since 2005, causes critical verification checks to be terminated, drawing ironic parallels to the extremely critical 'goto fail' flaw that for months put users of Apple's iOS and OS X operating systems at risk of surreptitious eavesdropping attacks. Apple developers have since patched the bug." And while Apple can readily fix a bug in its own software, at least for users who keep up on patches, "Linux" refers to a broad range of systems and vendors, rather than a single company, and the affected systems include some of the biggest names in the Linux world, like Red Hat, Debian, and Ubuntu.
This if nothing else, should show everyone it's time to switch to Windows, the OS immune to exploits.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The impact of this bug does not compare to the goto fail bug. Most Linux distributions use OpenSSL for TLS. Even if a program links to GnuTLS, it may not use GnuTLS for certificate validation, and if it doesn't, then it's not affected by this bug (one example is Google Chrome). It's not like iOS where everything is required (by App Store rules) to use SecureTransport.
My distro patched this over a month ago.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Is anyone other than Debian zealous enough to use GnuTLS?
I rarely agree with Howard Chu of OpenLDAP fame, but... http://www.openldap.org/lists/...
> Most Linux distributions use OpenSSL for TLS.
> Even if a program links to GnuTLS, it may not use GnuTLS for certificate validation,
> and if it doesn't, then it's not affected by this bug (one example is Google Chrome)
Agree. I've ran through everything that linked to gnutls on my distro (Arch) and although there's
quite a lot of binaries that do, most of those do not offer TLS connections (or any network connectivity at all), so my
guess (without knowing GNuTLS at all) is that they use some other feature offered by the library.
Of those that I know actually capable of SSL/TLS connections, all (also) link to OpenSSL.
So without making a definitive statement, AFAICT this should have near zero impact on GNU/Linux.
Are you trolling for an Apple-vs-Linux flame war? do you have a zealous attachment to Apple? or are you just dull?
1) This is old news, and the /. has already reported on it;
2) Hardly anything uses the GNU TLS library, and for the same reason people have been advising against Apple's rewrite of security libraries: because it's better to use something that's had over a decade of development and review and is widely deployed across a series of platforms;
3) You're arguing about the heterogeneity of the Linux platform as if it's a bad thing, while in fact this acts in Linux's favour. Even though the GNU project might like people to use gnutls, distros have chosen not to. Apple either discourages choice or makes it impossible, depending on what exactly you're targeting, which is why everything was affected.
Create a library with that name that does nothing, or logs errors for any entry points. Why is something being shipped that is insecure. I understand that the builds have to be changed. But the library could be replaced with a skeleton right now, can't it?
And maybe we would see that its not quite as in-active as people think.
There are two distinct part of SSL/TLS; encryption and authentication. In this case it's only the authentication portion that has an issue, not the encryption portion. There are several places in which GnuTLS is used for encryption but not authentication such as MTA (email) transfers over TLS (at least most of the time).
As for why GnuTLS exists, AFAIK it's mainly because of licensing issues -- compiling a GPLv2+ program against OpenSSL gets into licensing troubles, so there needed to be a GPL compatible alternative.
Please define "as quickly as desired". Debian was fixed on the 3rd of March which is the date of the Debian Security Advisory, that's pretty quick to me. I wonder exactly why this article pops up now, when it's been a long time we've been all patched.
For all the speed with which Debian rolled out a patch, it'll still be months or years before this patch makes it into the wild on all the systems it's being used on.
When you show me the OS that has a patch for idiot, lazy or incompetent operators, I will buy you a beer.
Well, there is this one crazy project.