Re: A different proposal

On Apr 10, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Nathan Dorfman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> If your reliance on OpenSSL bugs being fixed requires a fix at a rate faster than what the FreeBSD community provides, then you should not rely on the FreeBSD community. Install OpenSSL on your mission-critical systems from OpenSSL source, not from FreeBSD ports or packages.
> 
> I really don't think one needs to go this far. The workaround provided
> in the original OpenSSL advisory, recompiling with
> -DOPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS, was directly applicable to FreeBSD. For
> anyone unsure exactly where to effect that option, it was discussed on
> this very list. Also posted on this list was a working patch
> containing the actual fix, on Monday afternoon.

That fixed *this* bug; earlier ones took actual patches.

> So yes, if you want a fully tested, reviewed and supported fix, you
> had to wait, but anyone in desperate need of an immediate fix had
> options that didn't involve ditching FreeBSD's OpenSSL.

I was not proposing ditching FreeBSD's OpenSSL when the next bug was found: I was proposing that you switch at your own speed before the next emergency. And I'm not proposing that's the best thing to do: I'm certainly not going to, I'm quite happy with the FreeBSD response.

This is a different proposal than "someone should get paid to reduce my security timing issues". It is "I should take responsibility for my security timing issues".

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"