The consequences of the Debian OpenSSL compromiseAlthough this is rather behind the times, I don't think I've seen the practical consequences of the Debian OpenSSL vulnerability written down clearly and in one place. So here is my list, concentrating on SSH and SSL certificates:
Or in short: even if you are not using bad keys or certificates, a vulnerable system is still bad news. Complicating the SSL situation is the issue of which source of SSL libraries an application uses. Some number of Debian systems have both OpenSSL and GNUTLS installed, and GNUTLS is not vulnerable. So an application using GNUTLS does not lose any perfect forward secrecy it had, while if it did not have PFS, its sessions are still vulnerable if it was using a compromised certificate generated by OpenSSL. (The converse is true; a certificate generated by GNUTLS on a vulnerable system is not vulnerable.) (OpenSSH always uses OpenSSL and people usually generate certificates with OpenSSL, although not always. Web servers, IMAP servers, and so on can vary widely, although in practice most use OpenSSL.) Note: 'Debian' here includes all Debian derived distributions, which includes at least Ubuntu (and its variants), Knoppix, and Xandros. |
These are my WanderingThoughts GettingAround This is part of CSpace, and is written by ChrisSiebenmann. * * * Atom feeds are available; see the bottom of most pages. Categories: links, linux, programming, python, snark, solaris, spam, sysadmin, tech, unix, web |