On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:55:36 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But look at the > > example of the random number generator in my other e-mail. I've > > seen other cases were they do things like that. And I can > > perfectly understand why they do it, and then rely on that > > behaviour on OpenBSD, but it only works on OpenBSD.
It is a big task they are undertaking and are simply making their job easier. Later I expect portability patches can be more easily considered. I am sure OpenBSD get's far less funding than OpenSSL you know. I don't use debian online but if I did I would find an OpenSSL package with a dependence on haveged until something better is upstreamed desirable. I also expect patches may be needed or reverted for OpenBSD's long long time_t. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon_2013_time_t/ > > > > It did because it would have been picked up likely weeks after the bug > > was introduced due to OpenBSD and Gentoo hardened bug reports or static > > analysis resulting in bug reports. As Theo says possibly before it was > > actually released meaning all risk avoided "essentially for free". > > It seems you do not understand either vulnerability. I understand it perfectly, did you follow the link I posted to Theo's response to an OpenSSl dev about this very thing or the slides about OpenBSD's mitigation tecniques. It would have been found sooner or later way before it was. Replacing malloc has been described as exploitaion mitigation mitigation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/214362.32904...@smtp130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
