Census: How the Government says the website meltdown unfolded

[Ian Smith]

Perhaps of interest to some:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-10/census-night-how-the-shambles-unfolded/7712964

cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: freebsd-update and portsnap users still at risk of compromise

[Matthew Donovan]

You mean operating system as distribution is a Linux term. There's not much
different between HARDENEDBSD and FreeBSD besides that HardenedBSD fixes
vulnerabilities and has a an excellent ASLR system compared to the proposed
one for FreeBSD.

On Aug 9, 2016 3:10 PM, "Roger Marquis"  wrote:

> Timely update via Hackernews:
>
>   y-update-libarchive>
>
> Note in particular:
>
>  "FreeBSD is still vulnerable to the portsnap, freebsd-update, bspatch,
>  and libarchive vulnerabilities."
>
> Not sure why the portsec team has not commented or published an advisory
> (possibly because the freebsd list spam filters are so bad that
> subscriptions are being blocked) but from where I sit it seems that
> those exposed should consider:
>
>  cd /usr/ports
>  svn{lite} co https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/head /usr/ports
>  make index
>  rm -rf /usr/sbin/portsnap /var/db/portsnap/*
>
> I'd also be interested in hearing from hardenedbsd users regarding the
> pros and cons of cutting over to that distribution.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On 2016-07-29 09:00, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> not sure if you've been contacted privately, but  I believe the answer is
>>> "we're working on it"
>>>
>>
>> My concerns are as follows:
>>
>> 1. This is already out there, and FreeBSD users haven't been alerted that
>> they should avoid running freebsd-update/portsnap until the problems are
>> fixed.
>>
>> 2. There was no mention in the bspatch advisory that running
>> freebsd-update to "fix" bspatch would expose systems to MITM attackers who
>> are apparently already in operation.
>>
>> 3. Strangely, the "fix" in the advisory is incomplete and still permits
>> heap corruption, even though a more complete fix is available. That's
>> what prompted my post. If FreeBSD learned of the problem from the same
>> source document we all did, which seems likely given the coincidental
>> timing of an advisory for a little-known utility a week or two after that
>> source document appeared, then surely FreeBSD had the complete fix
>> available.
>>
>> ___
> freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: freebsd-update and portsnap users still at risk of compromise

[Roger Marquis]

Timely update via Hackernews:

 

Note in particular:

 "FreeBSD is still vulnerable to the portsnap, freebsd-update, bspatch,
 and libarchive vulnerabilities."

Not sure why the portsec team has not commented or published an advisory
(possibly because the freebsd list spam filters are so bad that
subscriptions are being blocked) but from where I sit it seems that
those exposed should consider:

 cd /usr/ports
 svn{lite} co https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/head /usr/ports
 make index
 rm -rf /usr/sbin/portsnap /var/db/portsnap/*

I'd also be interested in hearing from hardenedbsd users regarding 
the pros and cons of cutting over to that distribution.


Roger




On 2016-07-29 09:00, Julian Elischer wrote:


not sure if you've been contacted privately, but  I believe the answer is
"we're working on it"


My concerns are as follows:

1. This is already out there, and FreeBSD users haven't been alerted that
they should avoid running freebsd-update/portsnap until the problems are
fixed.

2. There was no mention in the bspatch advisory that running
freebsd-update to "fix" bspatch would expose systems to MITM attackers who
are apparently already in operation.

3. Strangely, the "fix" in the advisory is incomplete and still permits
heap corruption, even though a more complete fix is available. That's
what prompted my post. If FreeBSD learned of the problem from the same
source document we all did, which seems likely given the coincidental
timing of an advisory for a little-known utility a week or two after that
source document appeared, then surely FreeBSD had the complete fix
available.


___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"