Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 May 2017 19:14:42 +0200
From:      Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
To:        "O. Hartmann" <ohartmann@walstatt.org>
Cc:        freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Samba CVE-2017-7494 and SMB implementation of FreeBSD 10 through 12
Message-ID:  <F67019CC-9B84-4D2E-B027-214216D3DCFC@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170530185559.2b94ca1b@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de>
References:  <CAGYSLOcqeqyYgw3BFyoRKO5RcJkmiYFMPT7qps1j-%2BobL2x==g@mail.gmail.com> <F875D26C-F8DA-438F-AE40-8E7B2F5CDC29@FreeBSD.org> <20170530185559.2b94ca1b@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 30 May 2017, at 18:55, O. Hartmann <ohartmann@walstatt.org> wrote:
> 
> Am Mon, 29 May 2017 23:47:46 +0200
> Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> schrieb:
> 
>> On 29 May 2017, at 18:53, Darko Gavrilovic <d.gavrilovic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello, does anyone know or able to confirm if Samba CVE-2017-7494
>>> affects Samba 3.6.25 on Freebsd 9.x?
>>> 
>>> https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-announce/2017/000406.html
>> 
>> The advisory very clearly says "all versions of Samba from 3.5.0
>> onwards", so yes.  In addition, the 3.x series is dead, and completely
>> unsupported.  It is probably wise to upgrade, for example to 4.6.4.
>> 
>> -Dimitry
>> 
> 
> I'm just curious and to have an answere at hand for my superiors:
> 
> FreeBSD has a SMB implementation we uitlise with FreeBSD 10.3 and 11.0. Is FreeBSD's
> implementation somehow affected by the bug revealed in SAMBA >= 3.6.25?

If you mean smbfs, then that is an SMB *client* only, not a server.
CVE-2017-7494 is specifically about an exploitable bug in Samba's SMB
server component.  FreeBSD does not provide any SMB server in the base
system.

That said, I don't know whether there are any security bugs in our smbfs
client implementation.  It is really a completely different matter.  The
code seems to have been largely unmaintained for years, though, so
purely on that basis it does not inspire a great deal of confidence.

-Dimitry


[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.30

iEYEARECAAYFAlktqIoACgkQsF6jCi4glqOoEQCgsn14YyzVu39JvPfboMpv7HiV
R7gAniPxPk/mmsyt3yJA0/IJcKy3Yt2n
=vLU9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F67019CC-9B84-4D2E-B027-214216D3DCFC>