Re: CVE's for SSLv2 support

[Grant Ridder <shortdudey123 () gmail com>]

Link to RedHat announcement:
https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/drown

I am trying to follow the scope of this issue.  RedHat says "TLS servers
which support SSLv2 are vulnerable".  Can't tell if this means that
services with SSLv2 capabilities are vulnerable or only ones with it
enabled.

-Grant

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden () gmail com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
> wrote:
>
> > So there is this proposed RFC:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6176
> >
> > TL;DR: SSLv2 needs to be shot.
> >
> > Now we have yet another significant SSLv2 problem, DROWN, bad enough in
> > fact that Red Hat has now disabled SSLv2 in OpenSSL by default (already
> > done in NSS/GnuTLS), so from my vendor perspective, we're treating SSLv2
> > support as a security problem, the solution of which is to remove said
> > support.
> >
> > But more generally, should we look at assigning CVE's for support of
> SSLv2,
> > much like we would for products supporting DES or other known insecure
> > cryptographic algorithms, hashes, digests and protocols? My personal vote
> > is for yes.
> Btw, FreeBSD has done some work there:
>
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/LibreSSL/PatchingPorts#SSLv2.2FSSLv3_method_failures
>
> Linking with LibreSSL would help uncover those cases, and assign CVEs :)
>
>
> > --
> > Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
> > PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
> > Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert () redhat com