From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sun Dec 13 09:37:16 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F464B3911 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:37:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CtzvG6sg0z3NTG for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:37:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from alamar.ventu (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0BD9b92M016418 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:37:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152] claimed to be alamar.ventu Subject: Re: Kerberos: base or port? [Was: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-20:33.openssl] To: Benjamin Kaduk Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org References: <20201209230300.03251CA1@freefall.freebsd.org> <0ccfbeb4-c4e1-53e6-81e8-112318cd9bf1@netfence.it> <20201211202315.GK64351@kduck.mit.edu> <08c18c5e-d0fe-16c2-dd17-af5162fd8716@netfence.it> <20201212181821.GO64351@kduck.mit.edu> From: Andrea Venturoli Message-ID: <3ddff964-73f1-ed41-777c-a4c785414fd9@netfence.it> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:37:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201212181821.GO64351@kduck.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.83 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CtzvG6sg0z3NTG X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.80 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[78.134.96.152:from]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[78.134.96.152:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-security] X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:37:16 -0000 On 12/12/20 7:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Having two different instances of libcrypto in the same address space is > generally asking for trouble Of course. That's why I was always wary about switching to a newer/shinier OpenSSL from ports (wihtout eradicating the old one from base). You are right, "with sufficient care to detail" it will work, but it's going to be a lot of testing. > Understood. Thanks for following up anyway! You are welcome! Really! > None of those quite seem like they qualify as being complicated uses, so > there is probably not much immediate benefit from switching, for you. Thanks a lot for clarifying. > Sorry to have been a little too sensationalist, there. Well, you being "sorry" means me being safe and safe is better than sorry :) bye av.