Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:19:52 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org> Cc: Michael Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>, hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs Message-ID: <cb5206420610140819o7ee75c0fn33b8ec81de432015@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061014122356.GD45953@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <cb5206420610052235t78033639vaa90429f07581078@mail.gmail.com> <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <cb5206420610130618ycb0a14ev90dbcebdbf6b6316@mail.gmail.com> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> <b2203fed0610140511g66dd0c91xe1bc0a006b57337c@mail.gmail.com> <20061014122356.GD45953@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/14/06, Simon L. Nielsen <simon@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2006.10.14 08:11:56 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote: > > On 10/13/06, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > >> >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > > >> >> which use vulnerable libraries. > > >> > > > >> >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > > >> >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > > >> >of view :) > > >> > > >> Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > > >> performance? > > > > > >In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is > > >not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I > > >saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is > > >statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily > > >subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks > > >it's really necessary for a given port. > > > > Each of the ports listed in this thread are bad examples of > > finding static linked to ffmpeg. libxine, gstreamer-ffmpeg, and mplayer > > include ffmpeg in their source and don't link to multimedia/ffmpeg. > > Patching these ports to use a shared version of ffmpeg is pretty > > much out of the question since we would lose support from the > > authors. > > If ports include their own vulnerable version each port should be > marked vulnerable and fixed. We have already done this for zlib, > libtiff etc. in the past. Yes. The question is how to discover them without a dozen of full-time security officers (i.e. in a scriptable/automated way). > For ports which just links statically against a library from another > port, and therefor need to be recompiled after the library port is > updated I don't think they should be marked vulnerable in VuXML, but > it might be a good idea to bump the portrevision of the ports to force > a recompile (at least I don't see any better ways to do this). Why not mark them vulnerable? There are many people who upgrade _only_ vulnerable ports. We would deceive them if we just bumped portrevisions.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420610140819o7ee75c0fn33b8ec81de432015>