RE: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection

2014-09-29 Thread Sharon Zastre
Thank you Nick for quickly looking into a solution/work around for the shellshock vulnerability. But I'm confused as to how to implement it. I am currently at Apache 2.4.9 with OpenSSL 1.0.1g. Do I need to upgrade to 2.4.10 or 2.5(?) first? Will it simply be in the install and I include

Re: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection

2014-09-29 Thread Nick Kew
On 29 Sep 2014, at 17:35, Sharon Zastre wrote: Thank you Nick for quickly looking into a solution/work around for the shellshock vulnerability. But I'm confused as to how to implement it. I am currently at Apache 2.4.9 with OpenSSL 1.0.1g. Do I need to upgrade to 2.4.10 or 2.5(?)

RE: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection

2014-09-29 Thread Sharon Zastre
[mailto:n...@webthing.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:59 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection On 29 Sep 2014, at 17:35, Sharon Zastre wrote: Thank you Nick for quickly looking into a solution/work around for the shellshock

Re: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection

2014-09-29 Thread Pete Houston
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:09:19PM -0500, Sharon Zastre wrote: Is it safe to assume that a fix/patch/upgrade will become available to address the shellshock vulnerability? Yes, but not in apache. The vulnerability dubbed shellshock is a flaw in bash and patches and upgrades are already widely

Re: [users@httpd] Proposed simple shell-shock protection

2014-09-29 Thread Nick Kew
On 29 Sep 2014, at 19:41, Pete Houston wrote: It is not a flaw in apache. Apache is simply a network-enabled channel through which exploitative payloads may be delivered to unpatched installations of bash (one of many such channels). Yep. mod_taint (or any other Apache-based solution) is