Re: Legitimacy of new Heartbleed exploit?

[Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net>]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Dillon Korman <me () dillonkorman com> wrote:
> Saw a link to this:
> http://pastebin.com/qPxR9BRv

Fun!

> There is no actual exploit code in there since they insist of keeping it
private.

It'd be a lot less funny if they didn't keep it private. They claim to have
found a buffer overflow in the handling of the DOPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS
variable; since that's in the C Preprocessor, that's a rather extraordinary
claim.

> Do you think there really is a working exploit on new versions of OpenSSL?

Absolutely! Ask again in a year; if, say, Theo's LibreTLS "flensing" has
gotten to fly, and the Linux Foundation's attempt to fund maintenance of
critical infrastructure has had a little time to work.

But the TLS protocol itself, which must be replaced in every browser, is
designed first and foremost to guarantee that no-one can publish content
securely unless they've paid a tithe to a certificate authority; presumably
someone, somewhere, confused "enriching numbers salesmen" with "improving
security. The fiscal security of Verisign and their friends is covered, the
rest of us need a different protocol.

_______________________________________________
Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/