On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 14:19:33 +0400
Solar Designer so...@openwall.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:13:36AM +0200, Francois Ambrosini wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:04:47 +0400
Solar Designer so...@openwall.com wrote:
Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 10:38:50AM +0200, Francois Ambrosini wrote:
I am a mere user who happened to spot an inconsistency and wanted to
inform all parties.
I appreciate the constructive nature of your messages.
I will not comment on your guesses and opinions with information I do
not have.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:26:48AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:38:24PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Kurt and Solar --
You are the primary contacts for the oss-security email list.
Kurt is not.
Sorry for going slightly off-topic, since this is not an OpenBSD
Em 07-06-2014 00:04, Solar Designer escreveu:
tools and ethics are separate things
It seems like you got to the real issue now.
Cheers,
--
Giancarlo Razzolini
GPG: 4096R/77B981BC
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:04:47 +0400
Solar Designer so...@openwall.com wrote:
To clarify and for the record:
Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
notification of security issues. The list is just a tool. People
reporting security issues to the distros list are
Le 07/06/2014 05:41, Eric Furman a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 07:28 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
Le 06/06/2014 12:47, Eric Furman a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 04:20 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
On 06/06/2014 05:18 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM, Giancarlo
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:13:36AM +0200, Francois Ambrosini wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:04:47 +0400
Solar Designer so...@openwall.com wrote:
Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
notification of security issues. The list is just a tool. People
reporting
On 07 Jun 2014, at 08:38, Maxime Villard m...@m00nbsd.net wrote:
Contributing code upstream would have been a way more productive
approach;
It's already been stated that working with upstream is out of
the question for at least the following reasons:
* Bugs linger unattended for years.
* The
Em 07-06-2014 03:38, Maxime Villard escreveu:
But the devs preferred to fork and now blame people. So, no, I don't
think LibreSSL will prevail, simply because it has - and will have -
nothing new and because it has no credibility.
You should really take a look at the source code. If you're
On 06/06/2014 10:04 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
OpenBSD having declined to use the tool shouldn't be interpreted e.g. by
OpenSSL as a reason not to notify LibreSSL directly.
It seems worth noting that OpenBSD 5.5, the current release that many
people are running, incorporates OpenSSL, not
previously on this list Giancarlo Razzolini contributed:
What gives LibreSSL more credibility? There's almost nothing new or
innovative in it; it's just a cleaned up copy of OpenSSL.
You should do your homework.
Too right, also those previous two lines showed he has no clue about
real
On 2014-06-07, Maxime Villard m...@m00nbsd.net wrote:
What gives LibreSSL more credibility? There's almost nothing new or
innovative in it; it's just a cleaned up copy of OpenSSL. There might
be some changes in the future, but you can be sure that LibreSSL will
lag behind OpenSSL - and most of
Theo,
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:38:24PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Kurt and Solar --
You are the primary contacts for the oss-security email list.
Kurt is not. I guess the reason why you got such impression was because
Kurt invited you to join distros recently, not knowing that you had
On 06/06/2014 05:18 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 21:23, David Goldsmith escreveu:
Probably ipfilter
http://christopher-technicalmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/switching-firewalls-from-ipf-to-pf-on.html
If it is indeed
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 04:20 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
On 06/06/2014 05:18 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 21:23, David Goldsmith escreveu:
Probably ipfilter
On 06/06/2014 12:47 PM, Eric Furman wrote:
That's a valid opinion, but as I said, I doubt it.
Vendors aren't stupid. With all that has happened lately,
given a choice the switch will not take long.
Given a choice, perhaps. But some will stick with OpenSSL only because
they want the money
Eric Furman said:
Given the current circumstances Libre.SSL WILL prevail.
I hope you are right, but I actually believe that the circumstances of
this thread may work against LibreSSL - most likely the time difference
between vulnerability disclosure and patches for LibreSSL would be
percieved as
On 06/06/14 14:49, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
Eric Furman said:
Given the current circumstances Libre.SSL WILL prevail.
I hope you are right, but I actually believe that the circumstances of
this thread may work against LibreSSL - most likely the time difference
between vulnerability
Am 06.06.2014 14:15, schrieb Kapetanakis Giannis:
On 06/06/14 14:49, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
Eric Furman said:
Given the current circumstances Libre.SSL WILL prevail.
I hope you are right, but I actually believe that the circumstances of
this thread may work against LibreSSL - most likely
On 06/06/14 15:24, Markus Rosjat wrote:
Let's hope then that when LibreSSL is in production it will not share
the same vulnerabilities with OpenSSL. Otherwise, what's the point?
G
well I don't know much but the point in removing 90k of c code lines
from something that is messed up means to
Hi,
Since I've seen many commits yesterday on cvs@ and no errata yet,
I'd like to ask if the current snapshots (05/06/2014) are updated with
the patches in question?
Should we wait for more to come or are these adequate?
Specificaly
i386/ (base55.tgz) =
Em 06-06-2014 07:47, Eric Furman escreveu:
This is a joke, right? I think you are sadly misinformed.
This is OPEN SOFTWARE. Vendors will choose the least problematic
software.
You are naive.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of SSL Vendors.
Free software is fantastic, we all
On 6 June 2014 14:38, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
Em 06-06-2014 07:47, Eric Furman escreveu:
...
talking about. Funny thing, that I didn't needed to change any of my
banking passwords.
I don't know what, if anything, you're implying there.
Banks are generally
Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Writing in caps doesn't make your assumption correct. I'd really like
that everybody would switch to LibreSSL. But It will not be as simple as
you are putting. First of all, there are lots of money involved. And
now, even more, because the Linux Foundation is funding
Em 06-06-2014 10:55, Dan Becker escreveu:
As a simple user who influences these decisions in deployments, I can
tell you my desire is to ssh tunnel all my openssl connections until
the guys who make SSH finish fixing ssl.
Look at SSH's track record compared to OpenSSL.
It's not practical
Le 06/06/2014 12:47, Eric Furman a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 04:20 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
On 06/06/2014 05:18 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 21:23, David Goldsmith escreveu:
Probably ipfilter
To clarify and for the record:
Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
notification of security issues. The list is just a tool. People
reporting security issues to the distros list are encouraged to also
notify upstream projects/developers of the affected software, other
We are sorry that the errata for these libssl security issues are not
up yet.
The majority of these issues are in our ssl library as well.
Most other operating system vendors have patches available, but that
is because they were (obviously) given a heads up to prepare them over
the last few
Em 05-06-2014 15:42, dera...@cvs.openbsd.org escreveu:
We are sorry that the errata for these libssl security issues are not
up yet.
The majority of these issues are in our ssl library as well.
Most other operating system vendors have patches available, but that
is because they were
Em 05-06-2014 15:42, dera...@cvs.openbsd.org escreveu:
We are sorry that the errata for these libssl security issues are not
up yet.
The majority of these issues are in our ssl library as well.
Most other operating system vendors have patches available, but that
is because they were
Em 05-06-2014 15:57, Theo de Raadt escreveu:
Em 05-06-2014 15:42, dera...@cvs.openbsd.org escreveu:
We are sorry that the errata for these libssl security issues are not
up yet.
The majority of these issues are in our ssl library as well.
Most other operating system vendors have patches
There are two main open-source processes for dealing with discovery of
security issues and disclosure of that information to the greater
community.
- One common process is that generally followed by OpenBSD. In this
proocess a bug is found, and a fix is commited as soon as the
improvement is
Em 05-06-2014 16:27, Theo de Raadt escreveu:
There are two main open-source processes for dealing with discovery of
security issues and disclosure of that information to the greater
community.
- One common process is that generally followed by OpenBSD. In this
proocess a bug is found, and
On 6/5/2014 3:27 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Unfortunately I find myself believing reports that the OpenSSL people
intentionally asked others for quarantine, and went out of their way
to ensure this information would not come to OpenBSD and LibreSSL.
There, I've said it.
Now you have and
Now you have and example of how they are unwilling to work with you next
time someone asks why not work with OpenSSL on fixing it. Pretty direct
proof.
The culture gap between OpenSSL and OpenBSD/LibreSSL is UNFIXABLE.
We believe in peer review; they don't give a sh*t about it (as shown
less
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 08:02:58PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
If you can't trust people to apply one-liner fixes correctly, can you
trust them for anything serious?
I really don't like to point fingers, but...
It is done by the same people that introduced
the Debian random number bug back in
On 6/5/2014 4:02 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
Now you have and example of how they are unwilling to work with you next
time someone asks why not work with OpenSSL on fixing it. Pretty direct
proof.
The culture gap between OpenSSL and OpenBSD/LibreSSL is UNFIXABLE.
We believe in peer review;
Is clear that the second process -- intending to also take an ethical
path for disclosure -- should not specifically exclude a part of the
community.
They specifically exclude parts of the community that specifically
say they don't want to be INCLUDED.
See:
That's exactly my though. Specially, because FreeBSD and NetBSD were
warned, but not OpenBSD. If this was only a rant or any childish
behavior from them, it's something stupid and, of course, not the right
thing to do. But hey, we're all human. My real concern is if this
something else, a
That's exactly my though. Specially, because FreeBSD and NetBSD were
warned, but not OpenBSD. If this was only a rant or any childish
behavior from them, it's something stupid and, of course, not the right
thing to do. But hey, we're all human. My real concern is if this
something else,
Not saying I believe or disbelieve him, but it can't hurt to join even
if it is only until 5.6 comes out.
Another way to phrase this is
The OpenBSD user community should accept they have suffered
because Theo declined an invitation to a private email list,
entirely unrelated to the
We are not on a linux distros mailing list, because we are not a linux
distribution. And this private mailing list is not really an
acknowledged conduit for vulnerability release.
I was asked by someone privately if *I* would be on that mailing list
on June 2nd.
I said I would consider it, but
Em 05-06-2014 19:43, Bob Beck escreveu:
For the record, we didn't get advance notice of Heartbleed either, so
this is nothing new.
Bob,
I didn't knew that. I feel like I've released a monster (Cthulhu
anyone?). I was just curious when I asked Theo if this did happened
before. It's possible
On 2014/06/05 20:43, Martin, Matthew wrote:
That's exactly my though. Specially, because FreeBSD and NetBSD were
warned, but not OpenBSD. If this was only a rant or any childish
behavior from them, it's something stupid and, of course, not the right
thing to do. But hey, we're all human.
I predict that within a year OpenSSL will go the way of IPF.
For much the same reason...
Em 05-06-2014 20:45, Eric Furman escreveu:
I predict that within a year OpenSSL will go the way of IPF.
For much the same reason...
IPF? Care to elaborate?
--
Giancarlo Razzolini
GPG: 4096R/77B981BC
I may also remind people that those lists are acknowledged right at the top
as experimental. They also do not allow for non personal subscriptions, so
they aren't very practical for this. What if I was away for a day or
three.. Or more.. Essentially this is a nice experiment, but not really a
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini
grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 20:45, Eric Furman escreveu:
I predict that within a year OpenSSL will go the way of IPF.
For much the same reason...
IPF? Care to elaborate?
Well, in 2001 there was this drama around Darren Reed's
Em 05-06-2014 21:23, David Goldsmith escreveu:
Probably ipfilter
http://christopher-technicalmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/switching-firewalls-from-ipf-to-pf-on.html
If it is indeed ipfilter, I don't think OpenSSL will have the same fate.
There is lots of money on it, and even more now, that
On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 20:45, Eric Furman escreveu:
I predict that within a year OpenSSL will go the way of IPF.
For much the same reason...
IPF? Care to elaborate?
--
Giancarlo Razzolini
GPG: 4096R/77B981BC
Probably
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em 05-06-2014 21:23, David Goldsmith escreveu:
Probably ipfilter
http://christopher-technicalmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/switching-firewalls-from-ipf-to-pf-on.html
If it is indeed ipfilter, I don't think OpenSSL will have the
I suggest you talk to Mark Cox who actually handled this stuff. I'm not
sure why you are asking two people (myself and Solar) who are NOT part of
the OpenSSL team about whom the OpenSSL team notified.
Kurt, if Mark Cox is the person who handled this stuff, fine. Who
cares? I am hearing
Miod Vallat [m...@online.fr] wrote:
Now you have and example of how they are unwilling to work with you next
time someone asks why not work with OpenSSL on fixing it. Pretty direct
proof.
The culture gap between OpenSSL and OpenBSD/LibreSSL is UNFIXABLE.
We believe in peer review;
53 matches
Mail list logo
