--Apple-Mail=_2F1E293B-BE63-41EE-BDEF-705BB82C8C8D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On 8.4.2014, at 17.05, Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org> wrote:
> On 08.04.14 15:45, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>=20
>> I am trying to understand the implications of this bug in the
>> context of a vulnerable client, connecting to a server that does not
>> have this extension. e.g. a client app linked against 1.xx thats
>> vulnerable talking to a server that is running something from =
RELENG_8
>> in the base (0.9.8.x). Is the server still at risk ? Will the client
>> still bleed information ?
>=20
> If the adversary is in control of the network and can MITM the
> connection, then yes. The client leaks random chunks of up to 64k
> memory, and that is for each heartbeat request the server sends.
>=20
> erdgeist
>=20
Going back to this original report of the vulnerability. Has it been =
established with certainty that the attacker would first need MITM =
capability to exploit the vulnerability? I=92m asking this because MITM =
capability is not something that just any attacker can do. Also if this =
is true then it can be argued that the severity of this vulnerabilty has =
be greatly exaggerated.
-Kimmo
--Apple-Mail=_2F1E293B-BE63-41EE-BDEF-705BB82C8C8D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTRnOPAAoJEFvLZC0FWRVpFY0H/3Sek6VeBBJJEoUMyAtCT7i1
XEFOAqW69Qs5n4Frp2psjmjwSxUxJphWgE+/izzYDOfxV76yqDSvNJDAxdZG57gR
bjt1ASSCFGuLxIuZ9h8F3PlausBn83M30ycv67g5h/mwKw3lSVmi5FRbELLk2QXu
zDjBTKKmzjD5mIp2IjSTlK8WaT5GWPIZh1RMNYGHN161WL097wjfbORMXXfAT3Ys
60dXFxUdv6Fs345z9zy+g4A58/K4FCAfbfGZajdPIQecwPzzBC9um2H1oKPHSDgE
9M5Gnn39i5loRRSGAbpfwRCMS98RdLb45sQQtiSAekFDoFiOBE/CONKY85cMVA0=
=cZAw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_2F1E293B-BE63-41EE-BDEF-705BB82C8C8D--