William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/14/2010 7:59 PM, Nicholas Maniscalco wrote:
Is using OpenSSL built with the PURIFY flag considered "secure"?
I ask because I came across this comment, in md_rand.c:
#ifndef PURIFY /* purify complains */
/* DO NOT REMOVE THE FOLLOWING CALL TO MD_Update()! */
if (!MD_Update(&m,buf,j))
goto err;
/* We know that line may cause programs such as
purify and valgrind to complain about use of
uninitialized data. */
#endif
The last time someone went by such nonsense[1], they created an entirely
exploitable set of keys on all debian/ubuntu-derived distributions. Good
luck with that, and please let us know what you are maintaining, so that
we might avoid such distributions and products.
[1] http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571
Thanks, William. I am familiar with the Debian issue.
The code I pasted above is from ssleay_rand_bytes. Perhaps you were
thinking I was talking about the call in ssleay_rand_add? I am quite
aware that removing the call from ssleay_rand_add is a very bad idea :)
Are you still of the opinion that an OpenSSL built with PURIFY is
insecure? David Schwartz, indicated otherwise in a similar thread I
started a few weeks back (see his last sentence),
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg27732.html
I was satisfied with his answer until I saw the comment above, hence the
new thread. Again, I'm just trying to get a definitive answer on
whether the PURIFY flag is considered secure. Thanks.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [email protected]
