Did you update your router for the WPA2/PSK KRACK nonce re-u

[harry newton]

He who is harry newton said on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:03:42 +-0000 (UTC):

Thanks for explaining that as this nonce stuff has certain unexpected
nuances.

Here's every patch for KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability available right now
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/here-is-every-patch-for-krack-wi-fi-attack-available-right-now/>

Apple: The iPhone and iPad maker confirmed to sister-site CNET that fixes
for iOS, macOS, watchOS and tvOS are in beta, and will be rolling it out in
a software update in a few weeks.

MORE SECURITY NEWS

WPA2 security flaw puts almost every Wi-Fi device at risk of hijack,
eavesdropping
Homeland Security orders federal agencies to start encrypting sites, emails
+IAs-OnePlus dials back data collection after users protest
These fake tax documents spread jRAT malware
Arris: a spokesperson said the company is "committed to the security of our
devices and safeguarding the millions of subscribers who use them," and is
"evaluating" its portfolio. The company did not say when it will release
any patches.

Aruba: Aruba has been quick off the mark with a security advisory and
patches available for download for ArubaOS, Aruba Instant, Clarity Engine
and other software impacted by the bug.

AVM: This company may not be taking the issue seriously enough, as due to
its "limited attack vector," despite being aware of the issue, will not be
issuing security fixes "unless necessary."

Cisco: The company is currently investigating exactly which products are
impacted by KRACK, but says that "multiple Cisco wireless products are
affected by these vulnerabilities."

"Cisco is aware of the industry-wide vulnerabilities affecting Wi-Fi
Protected Access protocol standards," a Cisco spokesperson told ZDNet.
"When issues such as this arise, we put the security of our customers first
and ensure they have the information they need to best protect their
networks. Cisco PSIRT has issued a security advisory to provide relevant
detail about the issue, noting which Cisco products may be affected and
subsequently may require customer attention.

"Fixes are already available for select Cisco products, and we will
continue publishing additional software fixes for affected products as they
become available," the spokesperson said.

In other words, some patches are available, but others are pending the
investigation.

Espressif Systems: The Chinese vendor has begun patching its chipsets,
namely ESP-IDF and ESP8266 versions, with Arduino ESP32 next on the cards
for a fix.

Fortinet: At the time of writing there was no official advisory, but based
on Fortinet's support forum, it appears that FortiAP 5.6.1 is no longer
vulnerable to most of the CVEs linked to the attack, but the latest branch,
5.4.3, may still be impacted. Firmware updates are expected.

FreeBSD Project: There is no official response at the time of writing.

Google: Google told sister-site CNET that the company is "aware of the
issue, and we will be patching any affected devices in the coming weeks."

HostAP: The Linux driver provider has issued several patches in response to
the disclosure.

Intel: Intel has released a security advisory listing updated Wi-Fi drives
and patches for affected chipsets, as well as Intel Active Management
Technology, which is used by system manufacturers.

Linux: As noted on Charged, a patch is a patch is already available and
Debian builds can patch now, while OpenBSD was fixed back in July.

Netgear: Netgear has released fixes for some router hardware. The full list
can be found here.

Microsoft: While Windows machines are generally considered safe, the
Redmond giant isn't taking any chances and has released a security fix
available through automatic updates.

MikroTik: The vendor has already released patches that fix the
vulnerabilities.

OpenBSD: Patches are now available. (The bastards allowed a diff to be
performed by the bad guys!)

Ubiquiti Networks: A new firmware release, version 3.9.3.7537, protects
users against the attack.

Wi-Fi Alliance: The group is offering a tool to detect KRACK for members
and requires testing for the bug for new members.

Wi-Fi Standard: A fix is available for vendors but not directly for end
users.

At the time of writing, neither Toshiba and Samsung responded to our
requests for comment. If that changes, we will update the story.

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2017-10-16, harry newton <harry@is.invalid> wrote:

This nonce KRACK vulnerability is in *everything*, including smart phones
(iOS & Android) and computers (Mac/Windows/Linux) and routers
(Netgear/Cisco/TPLink) ....

Yet there are still people who think the "Internet of Things" is a good idea.

Huge numbers of cheap wifi-connected devices, many poorly-designed, most of
them likely never receiving security updates. What could possibly go wrong?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[harry newton]

He who is Roger Blake said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:03:46 -0000 (UTC):

Huge numbers of cheap wifi-connected devices, many poorly-designed, most of
them likely never receiving security updates. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, much more information is out today than yesterday, where it appears
that this situation was handled well since May of this year.

The one open-source fiasco was the anomaly of OpenBSD, which the authors
vowed to never let happen again.

Otherwise, the proprietary solutions were all fixed (or being fixed) in the
way that'd you'd expect.

The problem is in all WiFi WPA1 and WPA2 implementations, but mostly in
Linux and Android "clients" and less so in iOS and Windows clients.

Likewise less so in "routers" not set up as "bridges" (where,
unfortunately, almost all the many routers in my home are almost all set up
as bridges or as stations - all of which are vulnerable).

I guess, when the smoke clears, the problem will be the unsupported
devices, of which Android may be a significant set as may be some of the
older routers and access points.

 

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/16/17 23:53, harry newton wrote:

He who is J.O. Aho said on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:08:48 +0200:

They do use a tool commonly used in man-in-the-middle attacks, to strip
away the tls and send the content to the client machine unencrypted. As
they did explain in the video, many don't check in their mobile devices
that they have tls communication or not and those they will be able to
carry out the attack to see the the login credentials in this example.

This has nothing to do with KRACK itself.

Thanks for explaining *how* they manage to unencrypt *some* encrypted web
sites but not others, as I wasn't sure how they did that.

You can think of it like

[client]----->[MITM HTTP-service]--->[MITM client]--->[HTTPS Site]

or if you want to keep encryption

[client]----->[MITM HTTPS-service]--->[MITM client]--->[HTTPS Site]

In the first case the client connect to the Man-in-the-middle (MITM)
over http, MITM then resends the data over HTTPS to the site the client
tried to connect to.

In the second example the MITM do allow the client to connect with
HTTPS, the certificate which the MITM has will not be the same as on the
site, so if the client don't verify the certificate, then the attack works.

If you want to read more in detail and better explained how MITM works,
please take a look at:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Man-in-the-middle_attack

I was wrong in assuming it was the KRACK attack, which seems to be that
they simply hijack the third of the four handshakes, usually from the
client side, and force it to be resent where in some cases, it's resent as
all zeroes where in other cases it's just resent as a known nonce.

Is that a decent summary or can you summarize the attack mode better?

I wouldn't say it's hijacked, as you can resend the third request
without knowing the first request. The request is sent to the client and
on the client side, if you have followed the specification and cleared
out the key already, then a zero-key used.
I think they did explain this well on the video.

--

//Aho

 

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/16/17 23:31, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2017-10-16, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
It's more important to update the client than the server.

Is this something that MS can push an update out for to fix, or does the
wifi chip vendor need to fix device firmware or device driver?

No, not the chip vendor, the manufacturer of the device, for example to
get a fix for your phone, the phone manufacturer has to push out a fix,
then your phone operator may have a custom firmware for your phone, then
you may be vulnerable a lot longer.
When it comes to your wifi, the Access point is usually not a client, so
it's not as vulnerable to the issue. It's important to get updates to
your devices that connects to wifi.

 

[William Unruh]

On 2017-10-17, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/16/17 23:31, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-10-16, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
It's more important to update the client than the server.

Is this something that MS can push an update out for to fix, or does the
wifi chip vendor need to fix device firmware or device driver?


No, not the chip vendor, the manufacturer of the device, for example to
get a fix for your phone, the phone manufacturer has to push out a fix,
then your phone operator may have a custom firmware for your phone, then
you may be vulnerable a lot longer.

As I understand it on Android, it uses wpa_supplicant to make the WPA2
connection, and what is needed is to push an updated wpa_supplicant
onto the phone (and presumably something similar for IOS).
I do not think it has anything to do with the firmware.

When it comes to your wifi, the Access point is usually not a client, so
it's not as vulnerable to the issue. It's important to get updates to
your devices that connects to wifi.

 

[David_B]

On 17-Oct-17 1:17 AM, harry newton wrote:

He who is harry newton said on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:03:42 +-0000 (UTC):

Thanks for explaining that as this nonce stuff has certain unexpected
nuances.

Here's every patch for KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability available right now
http://www.zdnet.com/article/here-is-every-patch-for-krack-wi-fi-attack-available-right-now/


Apple: The iPhone and iPad maker confirmed to sister-site CNET that fixes
for iOS, macOS, watchOS and tvOS are in beta, and will be rolling it out in
a software update in a few weeks.

MORE SECURITY NEWS

WPA2 security flaw puts almost every Wi-Fi device at risk of hijack,
eavesdropping
Homeland Security orders federal agencies to start encrypting sites, emails
+IAs-OnePlus dials back data collection after users protest
These fake tax documents spread jRAT malware
Arris: a spokesperson said the company is "committed to the security of our
devices and safeguarding the millions of subscribers who use them," and is
"evaluating" its portfolio. The company did not say when it will release
any patches.

Aruba: Aruba has been quick off the mark with a security advisory and
patches available for download for ArubaOS, Aruba Instant, Clarity Engine
and other software impacted by the bug.

AVM: This company may not be taking the issue seriously enough, as due to
its "limited attack vector," despite being aware of the issue, will not be
issuing security fixes "unless necessary."

Cisco: The company is currently investigating exactly which products are
impacted by KRACK, but says that "multiple Cisco wireless products are
affected by these vulnerabilities."

"Cisco is aware of the industry-wide vulnerabilities affecting Wi-Fi
Protected Access protocol standards," a Cisco spokesperson told ZDNet.
"When issues such as this arise, we put the security of our customers first
and ensure they have the information they need to best protect their
networks. Cisco PSIRT has issued a security advisory to provide relevant
detail about the issue, noting which Cisco products may be affected and
subsequently may require customer attention.

"Fixes are already available for select Cisco products, and we will
continue publishing additional software fixes for affected products as they
become available," the spokesperson said.

In other words, some patches are available, but others are pending the
investigation.

Espressif Systems: The Chinese vendor has begun patching its chipsets,
namely ESP-IDF and ESP8266 versions, with Arduino ESP32 next on the cards
for a fix.

Fortinet: At the time of writing there was no official advisory, but based
on Fortinet's support forum, it appears that FortiAP 5.6.1 is no longer
vulnerable to most of the CVEs linked to the attack, but the latest branch,
5.4.3, may still be impacted. Firmware updates are expected.

FreeBSD Project: There is no official response at the time of writing.

Google: Google told sister-site CNET that the company is "aware of the
issue, and we will be patching any affected devices in the coming weeks."

HostAP: The Linux driver provider has issued several patches in response to
the disclosure.

Intel: Intel has released a security advisory listing updated Wi-Fi drives
and patches for affected chipsets, as well as Intel Active Management
Technology, which is used by system manufacturers.

Linux: As noted on Charged, a patch is a patch is already available and
Debian builds can patch now, while OpenBSD was fixed back in July.

Netgear: Netgear has released fixes for some router hardware. The full list
can be found here.

Microsoft: While Windows machines are generally considered safe, the
Redmond giant isn't taking any chances and has released a security fix
available through automatic updates.

MikroTik: The vendor has already released patches that fix the
vulnerabilities.

OpenBSD: Patches are now available. (The bastards allowed a diff to be
performed by the bad guys!)

Ubiquiti Networks: A new firmware release, version 3.9.3.7537, protects
users against the attack.

Wi-Fi Alliance: The group is offering a tool to detect KRACK for members
and requires testing for the bug for new members.

Wi-Fi Standard: A fix is available for vendors but not directly for end
users.

At the time of writing, neither Toshiba and Samsung responded to our
requests for comment. If that changes, we will update the story.

Thanks, Harry.

Have you read/watched here?
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/krack-wpa2-protocol-wi-fi-attack-how-it-works-and-whos-at-risk/

--
David B.

 

[harry newton]

He who is David_B said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:04:31 +0100:

Have you read/watched here?
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/krack-wpa2-protocol-wi-fi-attack-how-it-works-and-whos-at-risk/

Nice find.
<http://www.techrepublic.com/article/krack-wpa2-protocol-wi-fi-attack-how-it-works-and-whos-at-risk/>
KRACK WPA2 protocol Wi-Fi attack: How it works and who's at risk

Salient points:
.. There are 10 CVE identifiers
.. All WPA is likely affected especially Android 6.0+ & Linux/MacOS clients
.. <https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/byvendor?searchview&Query=FIELD+Reference=228519&SearchOrder=4>
.. Lynchpin is the 4-way handshake to join a WPA network
.. wpa_supplicant is the Wi-Fi library that handles the 4-way handshake
.. The SSID passphrase is verified & an encryption key is negotiated
.. The client waits for the access point to acknowledge the encryption key
.. The client will receive the encryption key multiple times in that case
.. The client is expected to reinstall that rebroadcast encryption key
.. The client is expected to reset the incremental packet transit nonce
.. The result is a blank (all zero) encryption key

 

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 17/10/2017 1:05 AM, harry newton wrote:

It's more than just routers, so it's *big* - but bear in mind a. Fixes
will be out soon
b. Nothing is known in the wild yet
c. You have to be nearby to be vulnerable

So are these "fixes" really fixing the problem, or are they merely
moving the trap-doors to somewhere? That is, the trap-doors or maybe
"portals" are always opened.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:11:36 AM UTC-4, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

So are these "fixes" really fixing the problem, or are they merely
moving the trap-doors to somewhere? That is, the trap-doors or maybe
"portals" are always opened.

Logical fallacy - you cannot know what you do not know.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[harry newton]

He who is Mr. Man-wai Chang said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:11:31 +0800:

So are these "fixes" really fixing the problem, or are they merely
moving the trap-doors to somewhere? That is, the trap-doors or maybe
"portals" are always opened.

The author of the KRACK attack pleonasm says that he would expect other
protocols to be similarly afflicted.

 

[J.O. Aho]

On 10/17/17 07:25, William Unruh wrote:

On 2017-10-17, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
On 10/16/17 23:31, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-10-16, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
It's more important to update the client than the server.

Is this something that MS can push an update out for to fix, or does the
wifi chip vendor need to fix device firmware or device driver?


No, not the chip vendor, the manufacturer of the device, for example to
get a fix for your phone, the phone manufacturer has to push out a fix,
then your phone operator may have a custom firmware for your phone, then
you may be vulnerable a lot longer.

As I understand it on Android, it uses wpa_supplicant to make the WPA2
connection, and what is needed is to push an updated wpa_supplicant
onto the phone (and presumably something similar for IOS).
I do not think it has anything to do with the firmware.

The wps_supplicant ain't delivered as APK, so you will need a firmware
update. On most GNU/Linux phones it's a package (rpm/deb), so that could
be pushed out without a firmware update.

 

[William Unruh]

On 2017-10-17, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:

On 10/17/17 07:25, William Unruh wrote:
On 2017-10-17, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
On 10/16/17 23:31, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-10-16, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
It's more important to update the client than the server.

Is this something that MS can push an update out for to fix, or does the
wifi chip vendor need to fix device firmware or device driver?


No, not the chip vendor, the manufacturer of the device, for example to
get a fix for your phone, the phone manufacturer has to push out a fix,
then your phone operator may have a custom firmware for your phone, then
you may be vulnerable a lot longer.

As I understand it on Android, it uses wpa_supplicant to make the WPA2
connection, and what is needed is to push an updated wpa_supplicant
onto the phone (and presumably something similar for IOS).
I do not think it has anything to do with the firmware.

The wps_supplicant ain't delivered as APK, so you will need a firmware
update. On most GNU/Linux phones it's a package (rpm/deb), so that could
be pushed out without a firmware update.

I am pretty sure it is not firmware, but it is part of the Android
package, if that is what you mean. Ie, it is a system program/daemon.
How to replace it I have no idea, esp since it is probably altered by
either Google or by the phone manufacturer. So you are probably right
that it requires them to ship a replacement.

 

[s|b]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 20:55:25 +0200, s|b wrote:

Still waiting for an update for my TP-Link Archer C7 router. If I
understand all this correctly, then I'll also need an update for my
Nexus 5X?

TP-Link is waking up, so it seems:

[Security Flaws] Severe flaws called "KRACK" are discovered in the WPA2
protocol
<http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?101094-Security-Flaws-Severe-flaws-called-quot-KRACK-quot-are-discovered-in-the-WPA2-protocol>

Microsoft announces they patched the leak(s) on October 10.

Microsoft releases statement on KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability
<https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-releases-statement-krack-wi-fi-vulnerability>

--
s|b

 

[harry newton]

He who is s|b said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:36:45 +0200:

Microsoft releases statement on KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-releases-statement-krack-wi-fi-vulnerability

What's interesting is that the open-source community has a problem with
diffs letting the cat out of the bag too soon (witness openbsd).

 

[William Unruh]

On 2017-10-17, harry newton <harry@is.invalid> wrote:

He who is s|b said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:36:45 +0200:

Microsoft releases statement on KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-releases-statement-krack-wi-fi-vulnerability

What's interesting is that the open-source community has a problem with
diffs letting the cat out of the bag too soon (witness openbsd).

And the closed source community has a problem with never actually fixing
the problems (see most of the wireless router manufacturers).

As can be seen from the debate that occured re Krack and OpenBSD.
Theodore felt that leaving his users hanging completely exposed was not
a good idea, and eventually the Krack finder agreed (only to regret it
later). It is a real moral connundrum. Did anyone actually notice that
OpenBSD could be used to reveal the bug? Ofttimes fear makes one think
that everyone in the world can see right through you and see what you
are trying to hide, while actually noone does.
So it was not a problem, but a true moral connundrum where no answer is
right.

 

Bill Bradshaw wrote:

It appears if you do not use or have WiFi and enabled you should be
secure from this. Since I have both disabled I assume I am safe because I
use neither.

Is a hard wired connection safer (at all distances)?

 

[harry newton]

He who is William Unruh said on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:25:28 -0000 (UTC):

And the closed source community has a problem with never actually fixing
the problems (see most of the wireless router manufacturers).

Hi William,
I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess what you're saying is that firmware
is only available for the newest routers, which I would agree with. Is that
what you're saying?

As can be seen from the debate that occured re Krack and OpenBSD.
Theodore felt that leaving his users hanging completely exposed was not
a good idea, and eventually the Krack finder agreed (only to regret it
later).

Thanks William for understanding what I was talking about. I do see the
conundrum, which is the following, put bluntly:
1. Researcher finds vulnerability on day 0 & secretly informs vendors
2. Proprietary-code vendors fix & release code & nobody is the wiser
3. Open-source vendors fix & release code & anyone can do a "diff"

The problem is that the bad guys can do the diff and then get a jump in the
wild on building an attack vector.

I don't know *how* to solve this, and I don't understand what the Krack
Attack researcher proposed for what Theordore should have done.

It is a real moral connundrum. Did anyone actually notice that
OpenBSD could be used to reveal the bug?

William,
Can you help me understand what the researcher prefers for next time?

He used the words "sit on a diff", which I took to mean that someone *knew*
what the changes were and had to "sit on it" (and not tell anyone). (Yes,
I'm well aware of what a "diff" is in the Bash world anyway, which is just
a command revealing what's different.)

I'm confused about one of two events, as to what the researcher wanted:
1. Did he want Theordore to just *sit* on the fix & wait?
2. Or did he propose not giving Theordore enough info to fix it next time?

Ofttimes fear makes one think
that everyone in the world can see right through you and see what you
are trying to hide, while actually noone does.
So it was not a problem, but a true moral connundrum where no answer is
right.

But what is the *standard* approach in this situation for open-source code?
What did the researcher propose for open-source code vendors?
1. Did he propose that they not release the code until it's public?
2. Or did he propose not *telling* the open-source community early?

I'm confused what the suggested "solution" by the researcher was.

 

[Marek Novotny]

On 2017-10-18, harry newton <harry@is.invalid> wrote:

He who is William Unruh said on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:25:28 -0000 (UTC):

And the closed source community has a problem with never actually fixing
the problems (see most of the wireless router manufacturers).

Hi William,
I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess what you're saying is that firmware
is only available for the newest routers, which I would agree with. Is that
what you're saying?

As can be seen from the debate that occured re Krack and OpenBSD.
Theodore felt that leaving his users hanging completely exposed was not
a good idea, and eventually the Krack finder agreed (only to regret it
later).

Thanks William for understanding what I was talking about. I do see the
conundrum, which is the following, put bluntly:
1. Researcher finds vulnerability on day 0 & secretly informs vendors
2. Proprietary-code vendors fix & release code & nobody is the wiser
3. Open-source vendors fix & release code & anyone can do a "diff"

The problem is that the bad guys can do the diff and then get a jump in the
wild on building an attack vector.

I don't know *how* to solve this, and I don't understand what the Krack
Attack researcher proposed for what Theordore should have done.

It is a real moral connundrum. Did anyone actually notice that
OpenBSD could be used to reveal the bug?

William,
Can you help me understand what the researcher prefers for next time?

He used the words "sit on a diff", which I took to mean that someone *knew*
what the changes were and had to "sit on it" (and not tell anyone). (Yes,
I'm well aware of what a "diff" is in the Bash world anyway, which is just
a command revealing what's different.)

I'm confused about one of two events, as to what the researcher wanted:
1. Did he want Theordore to just *sit* on the fix & wait?
2. Or did he propose not giving Theordore enough info to fix it next time?

Ofttimes fear makes one think
that everyone in the world can see right through you and see what you
are trying to hide, while actually noone does.
So it was not a problem, but a true moral connundrum where no answer is
right.

But what is the *standard* approach in this situation for open-source code?
What did the researcher propose for open-source code vendors?
1. Did he propose that they not release the code until it's public?
2. Or did he propose not *telling* the open-source community early?

I'm confused what the suggested "solution" by the researcher was.

The standard approach is to give a short waiting period in which
the researcher who discovers the bug sits on the bug. Meaning that
the researcher does not announce to the world the existence of the
found bug. Instead the researcher notifies vendors and publishers,
such as a distribution or a vendor for a router such as NetGear.

The idea is that they have 60 days in which to patch before the news
goes fully public. The idea here is that sometimes they need to be
shamed publicly for not patching their hardware or software.

In those 60 days all vendors and users of affected software have time
to perform a standard update which should fix the discovered issue
before the issue is revealed after the 60 days.

With open source software since development is out in the open it
is possible to discover the bug before 60 days are up. Development
is in the open after all. Sometimes if it is a really bad one many
distros might agree to release on the same day.

And then you have smaller distros based on larger distros that may lag.
rhel is typically incredibly fast to fix any known issue. Sometimes
in just an hour of it being discovered depending on what it is.

In my opinion this is where Open Source really shines. Something
like a pFsense firewall will get updates very quickly and you can
bank on it. A good distribution like RHEL, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu,
and Suse will get updates on any particular bug very quickly.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

 

[Doomsdrzej]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:25:28 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh
<unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

On 2017-10-17, harry newton <harry@is.invalid> wrote:
He who is s|b said on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:36:45 +0200:

Microsoft releases statement on KRACK Wi-Fi vulnerability
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-releases-statement-krack-wi-fi-vulnerability

What's interesting is that the open-source community has a problem with
diffs letting the cat out of the bag too soon (witness openbsd).

And the closed source community has a problem with never actually fixing
the problems (see most of the wireless router manufacturers).

As can be seen from the debate that occured re Krack and OpenBSD.
Theodore felt that leaving his users hanging completely exposed was not
a good idea, and eventually the Krack finder agreed (only to regret it
later). It is a real moral connundrum. Did anyone actually notice that
OpenBSD could be used to reveal the bug? Ofttimes fear makes one think
that everyone in the world can see right through you and see what you
are trying to hide, while actually noone does.
So it was not a problem, but a true moral connundrum where no answer is
right.

I have to disagree with the first statement. The open-source community
does fix bugs which are very well-known and widespread. That is why
Krack already has a fix. It's the smaller issues, like graphical
glitches that only affect about 25% of their users which they might
not actually fix. They only prioritize whatever they know they can't
get away without fixing.