Jeffrey Altman wrote: >>Jeffrey Altman wrote: >> >>>The answer to your questions is 'yes'. As I understand it, the >>>patches were released as they are "for the time being" because it is >>>better to crash your application then allow the attacker to compromise >>>your computer. >>> >>>New patches will have to be released to properly correct the problem >>>in the very near future. >> >>Note that changing unexploitable die()s to internal errors is a mistake: >>it is not safe to continue after an internal error! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Ben. > > > This is true IFF the internal error is the result of a memory > overwrite condition that could have compromised the application; but > if the problem is something that we were able to identify before any > damage is done (such as the recent protocol error checks) then the > error must be returned to the application. The library is often just > one small part of an overall application. Introducing easy to trigger > denial of service attacks is unacceptable.
I agree. This is precisely my point. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ Available for contract work. "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
