Slashdot Mirror
OpenSSL Patches Critical Certificate Forgery Bug
msm1267 writes: The mystery OpenSSL patch released today addresses a critical certificate validation issue where anyone with an untrusted TLS certificate can become a Certificate Authority. While serious, the good news according to the OpenSSL Project is that few downstream organizations have deployed the June update where the bug was introduced.
From the linked piece: The vulnerability allows an attacker with an untrusted TLS certificate to be treated as a certificate authority and spoof another website. Attackers can use this scenario to redirect traffic, set up man-in-the-middle attacks, phishing schemes and anything else that compromises supposedly encrypted traffic. [Rich Salz, one of the developers] said there are no reports of public exploits.
So i understand from this that o don't need to rush & patch my web servers who all have Trusted certs.
Right ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Apparently the NSA/FBI needed collect someone's encrypted data in the last year. Now that they have what they want, they are sewing it back up again.
Though with the NSA's purported computing capability and back doors it doesn't seem like they would need this -- unless some lesser player on the intelligence field got this in -- but then I'm positing corroboration with the OpenSSL folks, so it seems like only a government would be capable of coercing this kind of flaw. But with the underhanded C contest, maybe someone at OpenSSL would make a "mistake" for the right price.
For every one you see, there are tens of thousands more under the cabinet. Outside single user mode this whole certificate thing is not trustworthy in any sense...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Don't wanna sound like a witch hunter here but why don't we start checking who and when introduced critical bugs like these?
Background checks and all...
Hey editors - did you mean an "X.509 certificate?"
If you're running any kind of client connection (for instance, consuming a https webservice) then you'll need to update (unless they're using gnutls or nss instead of openssl)
Are LibreSSL and BoringSSL also affected? The article mentions that a BoringSSL contributor found the problem, but it doesn't say one way or the other whether this misbehavior made it into any releases of BoringSSL or any other OpenSSL fork.
A TLS certificate is an X.509 certificate whose common name identifies a hostname in the manner specified by TLS. All TLS certificates are X.509 certificates, but not all X.509 certificates are TLS certificates because not every X.509 certificate's common name identifies a hostname.
This bug was introduced recently in https://github.com/openssl/ope... to add support for "In certain situations the server provided certificate chain may no longer be valid" This bug doesn't affect libressl, boringssl, or vigortls.
Good news everybody, people aren't installing our broken and insecure updates!
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
OpenSSL problems are due to proprietary company controlling the project for certain proprietary interests.
Why don't we call you a CorporateSlaveTard?
That's why I get my crypto from SETEC Astronomy
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
OpenSSL problems are due to proprietary company controlling the project for certain proprietary interests.
Not really, OpenSSL is open-source, anyone can modify it.
The problem is the complete shittyness of the OpenSSL code.
Here's 49 pages of the stupidities that the LibreSSL people ( http://www.libressl.org/ ) found while going through the OpenSSL code: http://opensslrampage.org/
No, anyone can submit a contribution which may or may not get accepted by those controlling the project. Your understanding is so flawed
too many secrets
ill have some of that world peace about now.
Is it me or is there close to zero test harnesses for regression tests? And wasn't there money raised as well?
Understatement.
Have a nice time.
There was an announcement by RH in response to this, noting that the vulnerabilities were included in a recent release by openSSL, and that they had not gone into RHEL updates, so RHEL is not vulnerable, nor are it's children, like CentOS.
mark