Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: Martin Schroeder <mschroeder@vfemail.net> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-update and portsnap users still at risk of compromise In-Reply-To: <8d52c11892db36d5041f7fa638e46681@vfemail.net> References: <6bd80e384e443e5de73fb951e973b221@vfemail.net> <c59340ad-38d8-5b76-6cce-d4a1d540f90c@freebsd.org> <8d52c11892db36d5041f7fa638e46681@vfemail.net>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Timely update via Hackernews:
<hardenedbsd.org/article/shawn-webb/2016-08-07/vulnerability-update-libarchive>
Note in particular:
"FreeBSD is still vulnerable to the portsnap, freebsd-update, bspatch,
and libarchive vulnerabilities."
Not sure why the portsec team has not commented or published an advisory
(possibly because the freebsd list spam filters are so bad that
subscriptions are being blocked) but from where I sit it seems that
those exposed should consider:
cd /usr/ports
svn{lite} co https://svn.FreeBSD.org/ports/head /usr/ports
make index
rm -rf /usr/sbin/portsnap /var/db/portsnap/*
I'd also be interested in hearing from hardenedbsd users regarding
the pros and cons of cutting over to that distribution.
Roger
> On 2016-07-29 09:00, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>
>> not sure if you've been contacted privately, but I believe the answer is
>> "we're working on it"
>
> My concerns are as follows:
>
> 1. This is already out there, and FreeBSD users haven't been alerted that
> they should avoid running freebsd-update/portsnap until the problems are
> fixed.
>
> 2. There was no mention in the bspatch advisory that running
> freebsd-update to "fix" bspatch would expose systems to MITM attackers who
> are apparently already in operation.
>
> 3. Strangely, the "fix" in the advisory is incomplete and still permits
> heap corruption, even though a more complete fix is available. That's
> what prompted my post. If FreeBSD learned of the problem from the same
> source document we all did, which seems likely given the coincidental
> timing of an advisory for a little-known utility a week or two after that
> source document appeared, then surely FreeBSD had the complete fix
> available.
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>