From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6496025F for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2016 05:03:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,381,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1044635043" Received: from kanavin-desktop.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.68.49]) ([10.237.68.49]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2016 05:03:20 -0700 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: From: Alexander Kanavin Message-ID: <67fabe6e-fb01-7462-2e5e-8424d5d24571@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:01:39 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] openssl: update to 1.0.2i (CVE-2016-6304 and more) X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:03:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/23/2016 11:39 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > This update fixes several CVEs: > * OCSP Status Request extension unbounded memory growth (CVE-2016-6304) > * SWEET32 Mitigation (CVE-2016-2183) > * OOB write in MDC2_Update() (CVE-2016-6303) > * Malformed SHA512 ticket DoS (CVE-2016-6302) > * OOB write in BN_bn2dec() (CVE-2016-2182) > * OOB read in TS_OBJ_print_bio() (CVE-2016-2180) > * DTLS buffered message DoS (CVE-2016-2179) > * DTLS replay protection DoS (CVE-2016-2181) > * Certificate message OOB reads (CVE-2016-6306) > > Of these, only CVE-2016-6304 is considered of high > severity. Everything else is low. CVE-2016-2177 and CVE-2016-2178 were > already fixed via local patches, which can be removed now. This demonstrates that: a) if CVEs are fixed with backported patches, the process must be *thorough* and not shotgun-ish like now. It's pointless to fix some CVEs and ignore the others, just because that's what automated tools like cve-checker reported or someone saw some mail on a mailing list. b) it's okay to not fix low-severity CVEs until the upstream makes a new release. Upstream is much more competent than we are to judge that, and if the issue is high severity, they should make a new release anyway. Please feel free to disagree. Alex