[Haifux] More information about latest OpenSSL/OpenSSH/OpenVPN vulnerabilities?
shachar at shemesh.biz
Wed May 14 13:48:22 MSD 2008
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> 2008/5/14 Orr Dunkelman <orr.dunkelman at gmail.com>:
> Lesson 1: Comment your code when doing something unusual // for openssl
> Lesson 2: Patch upstream // for debian
> Though in the beginning I blamed Debian for this mess, after reading
> that article I'm starting to see the fault as being with the unusual,
> uncommented code in openssl.
It should be noted that the problem was not with Debian removing the
addition of entropy from uninitialized data to the entropy pool. The
problem was that while removing that line, another line was removed,
which added other entropy to the pool. As a result, no entropy was added
Debian did ask upstream about this change, but the two upstream
developers made two mistakes:
1. They did not say "this is an FAQ issue"
(http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#PROG14). Two developers
answered, one made a general comment (but did not point to the FAQ, or
even say there was an FAQ about this)
2. They got carried away by the question, lumping the two lines together
Then again, the Debian developer
1. Didn't mention that this was for a patch for Debian. He likely would
have gotten more attention if he had
2. Didn't send an actual patch for upstream inclusion. Same as 1 above
If he had done 2, the patch would likely have been rejected. If it had,
it would be likely that he would ask "why", and gotten an answer. That
would, in turn, trigger him taking the code out of Debian before two
years have passed.
Then again, many upstreams, when faced with a patch, merely ask "is it
right for me". They do not think about downstream, or what the
significance of someone from Debian sending in a patch (i.e. - that the
patch is already in binaries elsewhere, even if not accepted here). As a
result, not enough stress is given to rejections of patches from
downstream (as opposed to rejection of regular patches).
More information about the Haifux