From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 20:43:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E578790 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from neonpark.inter-sonic.com (neonpark.inter-sonic.com [212.247.8.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "neonpark.inter-sonic.com", Issuer "StartCom Class 2 Primary Intermediate Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA321CD9 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:43:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at BSDLabs AB Message-ID: <5345B0DD.8060807@intersonic.se> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 22:43:09 +0200 From: Per olof Ljungmark Organization: Intersonic AB User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Tancsa , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:06.openssl [REVISED] References: <201404090106.s3916VRm035425@freefall.freebsd.org> <5345955D.5080209@intersonic.se> <53459C19.8030000@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <53459C19.8030000@sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:43:15 -0000 On 2014-04-09 21:14, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On 4/9/2014 2:45 PM, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: >> Can someone please shed a little light why this advisory says STABLE/9 >> is affected, but >> https://heartbleed.com/ >> says it is not? > > There are 2 different issues [CVE-2014-0160] and [CVE-2014-0076] in the > FreeBSD advisory. > > "OpenSSL multiple vulnerabilities" > ^^^^^^^^ > > The one that impacts 8 and 9 is > > A local attacker might be able to snoop a signing process and might recover > the signing key from it. [CVE-2014-0076] Yes, thanks, I was too quick there - out of nervousness I suppose. //per