On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Dillon Korman <m...@dillonkorman.com> wrote: > Saw a link to this: > http://pastebin.com/qPxR9BRv
Fun! > There is no actual exploit code in there since they insist of keeping it private. It'd be a lot less funny if they didn't keep it private. They claim to have found a buffer overflow in the handling of the DOPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS variable; since that's in the C Preprocessor, that's a rather extraordinary claim. > Do you think there really is a working exploit on new versions of OpenSSL? Absolutely! Ask again in a year; if, say, Theo's LibreTLS "flensing" has gotten to fly, and the Linux Foundation's attempt to fund maintenance of critical infrastructure has had a little time to work. But the TLS protocol itself, which must be replaced in every browser, is designed first and foremost to guarantee that no-one can publish content securely unless they've paid a tithe to a certificate authority; presumably someone, somewhere, confused "enriching numbers salesmen" with "improving security. The fiscal security of Verisign and their friends is covered, the rest of us need a different protocol. _______________________________________________ Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
