From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May 17 23:06:22 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 001BD8B9
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 17 May 2015 23:06:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp1.ms.mff.cuni.cz (smtp1.ms.mff.cuni.cz
 [IPv6:2001:718:1e03:801::4])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FC7F1A67
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 17 May 2015 23:06:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-SubmittedBy: id 100000045929 subject
 /C=CZ/O=Univerzita+20Karlova+20v+20Praze/CN=Dan+20Lukes/unstructuredName=100000045929
 issued by
 /C=NL/ST=Noord-Holland/L=Amsterdam/O=TERENA/CN=TERENA+20Personal+20CA+202
 auth type TLS.MFF
Received: from kgw.obluda.cz ([194.108.204.138]) (authenticated)
 by smtp1.ms.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t4HN6GUq099364
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK)
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 01:06:19 +0200 (CEST)
 (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz)
Message-ID: <55591EE8.9070101@obluda.cz>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 01:06:16 +0200
From: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Forums.FreeBSD.org - SSL Issue?
References: <CACRVPYOALi-V8D34zeJTYdSwHshYrqtttqVV3=aP8Yb6ZAxfyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2857899F-802E-4086-AD41-DD76FACD44FB@modirum.com>
 <05636D22-BBC3-4A15-AC44-0F39FB265CDF@patpro.net>
 <20150514193706.V69409@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
 <F2460C80-969A-46DF-A44F-6C3D381ABDC3@patpro.net>
 <5554879D.7060601@obluda.cz>
 <1431697272.3528812.269632617.29548DB0@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <5556E5DC.7090809@obluda.cz>
 <1431894012.1947726.271026057.54BB4786@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <55590817.1030507@obluda.cz>
 <1431900010.1965646.271069369.67E0F082@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <1431900010.1965646.271069369.67E0F082@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 23:06:22 -0000

On 05/18/15 00:00, Mark Felder:
>> If TLS 1.0 is considered severe security issue AND system utilities are
>> using it, why there is no Security Advisory describing this system
>> vulnerability ?
>>
>
> It's not a vulnerability in software, it's weakness in the protocol
> design.

Like protocol protocol downgrade triggered by MITM attack flaw or 
protocol design flaw in session renegotiation support. The first one 
addressed in FreeBSD-SA-14:23.openssl, the second one in 
FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl

So the "is it protocol flaw or implementation bug" seems not to be true 
major criteria.

OK, I wish I got best answer to my question possible. I'm not going to 
discuss SA issuing policy in this thread.

Thank you.

Dan