in reply to Re^5: 5.18.0 is available NOW!
in thread 5.18.0 is available NOW!

Where is the proof of concept code? (Without it, this is nothing more that idle speculation that has cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort.)

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: 5.18.0 is available NOW!
by Anonymous Monk on May 22, 2013 at 06:41 UTC
    where is your patch to provide an alternate?
[reply]

      Two problems with that retort:

      1. It would be hard to code a patch to handle an attack vector that -- to the best of my ability to discover; and despite requests for further information and a promise of "I would release a full-disclosure document in the middle to last week of march." -- it seems has never been publicly described, let alone demonstrated.

        Indeed -- whilst I'm still waiting to hear back from mitre (CVE DB maintainers) and a couple of other likely organisations -- I can find no trace that anyone other than demerphq has ever been made party to the details of the vulnerability.

      2. Also, based upon the scant information I have been able to glean -- and a lot of unfortunately necessary supposition -- it seems likely that any one of several one-line patches might serve to totally mitigate the possibility of CVE-2013-1667.

        With the added upside that almost none of the pain caused by the implemented solution would have been necessary.

      I'm preparing a paper -- which will probably come in 4 or 5 parts -- now. But it would surely be easier, and maybe even unnecessary, if disclosure were made.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

        It turns out that vendors are slow in providing updates. We did a survey and there were too many vulnerable systems to release the details of the attack. Once we feel most of the affected systems are patched we will release more details. This process is called "responsible disclosure".

        Also, based upon the scant information I have been able to glean -- and a lot of unfortunately necessary supposition -- it seems likely that any one of several one-line patches might serve to totally mitigate the possibility of CVE-2013-1667.

        The patches mitigating CVE-2013-1667 are all public. The patches which changed Perls hash implementation are all public. The only code which is not public is the code which demonstrates a key-discovery attack on perls old hash function, and the key generator code to produce an attack key set for CVE-2013-1667.

        Please stop posting FUD about this issue. You do not know what you are talking about, and everybody reading this thread should know it.

        ---
        $world=~s/war/peace/g

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl News