Question of vulnerability OpenSSL WALNUT

Similar Questions

• OpenSSL WALNUT

  Dear community,

  is there an OSX Server version using a version of openssl which is not vulnerable to attack DROWN (TLS 1.2)?

  https://drownattack.com/#check

  Thanks in advance!

  For what its worth OS X Server uses Apache, if you follow the link to read the information about Apache and this number you will see Apache 2.4.x and later are supposed to be not affected.

  OS X Yosemite and El Capitan using versions of Apache that are 2.4.x or later, so in theory are not affected. Mavericks uses Apache 2.2.x and likely to be affected.

  Follow these steps in Terminal.app to know the version of Apache that you have.

  httpd - v

• Question of vulnerability scan yellow CiscoWorks Nessus

  Hello

  Analysis reports of Nessus vulnerability yellow for our CiscoWorks server:

  x.x.x.x (ip address of the server, CiscoWorks) YELLOW Sybase ASA Client connection Remote Broadcast

  Disclosure unit locate information on the Sybase server

  sybaseanywhere 2638

  If anyone knows the status of this issue, please let me know.

  We have the following CiscoWorks product and version:

  LMS (2.6)

  CiscoWorks Common Services 3.0.6

  Director of campus 4.0.6

  CiscoView 6.1.5

  Device fault 2.0.11 Manager

  InterNetwork Performance 2.6.0

  Resource Manager Essentials 4.0.5

  Your help would be greatly appreciated.

  Thank you.

  GY (Gongyuan Yao)

  Contractor (support of the LHC network)

  [email protected] / * / 301 - 435 - 3168 (o)

  240-417-1488 (c)

  It's CSCsk35018:

  http://Tools.Cisco.com/support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fetchBugDetails&bugId=CSCsk35018

  Following two discussions will highlight extra on top of what provides the tool Bug:

  http://Forum.Cisco.com/eForum/servlet/NetProf?page=NetProf&Forum=network%20Infrastructure&topic=network%20Management&CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Dpass_through%26location%3Doutline%40^1%40%40.2cc0b896/4#selected_message

  http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&forum=Network%20Infrastructure&topic=Network%20Management&topicID=.ee71a02&fromOutline=&CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Ddisplay_location%26location%3D.2cbec487

• OpenSSL vulnerability software

  I see a lot of news based on the alias of OpenSSL software vulnerability.

  For more information:

  http://www.ZDNet.com/heartbleed-serious-OpenSSL-zero-day-vulnerability-revealed-7000028166/

  security - software: what is and what are the options to mitigate? -Server fault

  https://blog.cloudflare.com/staying-ahead-of-OpenSSL-vulnerabilities

  https://Web.NVD.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-0160

  I did some searching but can't find any relationship with VMware/ESXi

  My question is this also influences the environment vSphere somehow?

  I hope that VMware will soon release a notice of security clear things and providing updates to this horrible problem (which is not their fault).

  The openssl software bug seems to affect ESXi as well. Virtual appliances based on recent Linux as the VCSA, vMA, etc. may be vulnerable too:

  Which versions of OpenSSL are affected?

  Status of different versions:

     OpenSSL 1.0.1 through 1.0.1f (included) are vulnerable

  1.0.1g OpenSSL is NOT vulnerable

  OpenSSL 1.0.0 branch is NOT vulnerable

  OpenSSL 0.9.8 branch is NOT vulnerable

  Bug was introduced in OpenSSL in December 2011 and has been in the wild since OpenSSL version 1.0.1 March 14, 2012. Published April 7, 2014 1.0.1g OpenSSL fixes the bug

  Let's take a look at a host of ESXi 5.5 GA (no U1):

  # vmware - vl

  VMware ESXi 5.5.0 build-1331820

  VMware ESXi 5.5.0 GA

  
  

  # OpenSSL version-

  OpenSSL 1.0.1e February 11, 2013

  built: kills Feb 26 16:34:26 PST 2013

  Now, here's a 5.1 U2 to update ESXi host:

  # vmware - vl

  VMware ESXi 5.1.0 build-1612806

  Updating VMware ESXi 5.1.0 2

  
  

  ~ # OpenSSL version -

  OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 February 2013

  built: Fri Mar 20 20:44:08 CDT 2013

  As you can see, ESXi 5.5 runs the branch vulnerable openssl 1.0.1. ESXi 5.1 U2 also uses the openssl 0.9.8 branch. So versions prior to ESXi 5.5 should be affected.

  I have a virtual appliance of older vMA 5.1 which is unchanged, as well:

  # cat/etc/vma-release

  vMA 5.1.0 BUILD-1062361

  # cat/etc/SuSE - release

  SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (x86_64)

  VERSION = 11

  PATCHLEVEL = 2

  # OpenSSL version-

  OpenSSL 1.0.0c December 2, 2010

  At least the vCenter non Inventory Service seems to depend on the openssl library as well:

  A 5.1 vCenter U2 seems of course:

  "C:\Program Files\VMware\Infrastructure\Inventory Service\bin\openssl.exe" version - a

  OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 February 2013

  built: Thu Feb 12 23:38:08 2013

  There are two binary openssl on a test vCenter 5.5 GA of mine, one of them having a vulnerable version:

  "C:\Program Files\VMware\CIS\openSSL\openssl.exe" version - a

  OpenSSL 1.0.1e February 11, 2013

  built: Thu Feb 12 19:37:08 2013

  "C:\Program Files\VMware\Infrastructure\Inventory Service\bin\openssl.exe" version - a

  OpenSSL 0.9.8y 5 February 2013

  built: Thu Feb 12 23:38:08 2013

• MITM Dell idrac openssl vulnerability

  Hello

  Nessus allows us to analyze our network. My most recent scan reports several openssl vulnerabilitis with a cvss score of 9.3, (note: HIGH), see below for more details. Found products are affected:

  Reference Dell idrac6 1.97

  Dell idrac7 1.57.57

  Nessus says that the possibility is confirmed, and the openssl version could also be vulnerable to the other openssl release questions the same day as the OpenSSL ' ChangeCipherSpec' MiTM vulnerability"released on June 5.

  If this is confirmed by dell? patches will be released for this fault?

  CVE-2010-5298, CVE-2014-0076, CVE-2014-0195, CVE-2014-0198, CVE-2014-0221, CVE-2014-0224, CVE-2014-3470

  Here's what I received the answer from Dell to the Openssl vulnerability.

  After a few calls to the help desk here is what I get for my iDRAC7 fighting flag of Foundstone security for vulnerability CVE-2014-0224scans:

  "The package OPEN SSL used here contains several components, you do not use the component that is vulnerable and affected, other components in this package are used but are not vulnerable".

  "Dell has determined that the products listed in the attached document are not affected by the problems.  Some products generated a module OpenSSL older (but not vulnerable).  This could be marked by a scanner.  "Dell is currently working to update the modules on a version that will not be reported for these issues.

  I also tried to download the document, I hope I can be read or downloaded.

  If this post has helped you please note.

  Thank you

  2376.Dell - ResponseOpenSSLSecurityAdvisory_05_June_2014_final.pdf

• Fusion 5.0.4 and software/OpenSSL vulnerability - affected or not?

  Hi all

  My Parallels Desktop imploded, forcing me to start over, and I thought that now is the ideal time to move (back) to the merger, once and for all. A question for you guys (I hope a simple):

  I see that Fusion 6.0.3 is out to protect themselves against the Heartbleed, but there is no corresponding to 5.0.4 patch.

  This does mean that the vulnerability does not exist in earlier versions, or that there is and is simply not to be patched for older versions? Finances are tight, and I was hoping to just use my 5.0.4 existing license.

  Can I do it safely?

  Thank you!

  Fusion 5 is not affected by the problem of software.  See VMware KB: response to OpenSSL security issue CVE-2014-0160/CVE-2014-0346 a.k.a: 'Heartbleed'

  See you soon,.

  --

  Darius

• Updated HP Device Manager 4.6 SP3 (OpenSSL vulnerability)

  Hey!

  I installed the HP Device Manager 4.6 SP3 Upgrade and our resident shows Vulnerability Scanner that uses the Version of OpenSSL is vulnerable.

  Ssleay32.dll and libeay23.dll details yet also show they are version 0.9.8.24 and not 1.0.1i...

  I did all this trouble during the upgrade?

  I tried the process of installation/upgrade on 3 different machines now, and the version of the same thing on all the settings...

  All boards

  Thank you!

  Georg

  Hi, George,

  There is nothing wrong with your update. Update libssl was not included in SP3. Please go with service pack4 released 27 October for this security update.

  Concerning

  -Chen

• Linksys Smart Wi - Fi is vulnerable to the heart bleed OpenSSL

  I'm curious to know if the Linksys Smart Wi - Fi site or routers are vulnerable to the exploit of heart bleed OpenSSL?

  http://SiliconANGLE.com/blog/2014/04/08/OpenSSL-heartbleed-vulnerability-may-affect-millions/

  BTW: Change your passwords...

  FW_LICENSE_EA4500_v2.1.39.145204 - 3 - RainCAP_n.html construction

• X7.2.3 VCS OpenSSL vulnerability

  Hi all

  CSCuo16472 (https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuo16472), we see that the vulnerability is fixed in X7.2.3 and X8.1.1.

  But in X7.2.3 covering memo, we cannot find any description about it. (In X8.1.1 we can find it).

  It's really fixed in X7.2.3?

  Best regards

  Kotaro

  Yes, it is set at X7.2.3 - it is mentioned very briefly buried on page 49 of the release notes where it says that it uses OpenSSL 1.0.1c patched for CVE-2014-0160.

• Plugin Status Check reports Java last x 64 as vulnerable

  Last night, I have updated all the plugins to display the green buttons "up to date" on the Web site to check the Plugin situation. However, this morning, he pointed out that the Java plugin is vulnerable (note: not "stale"). y at - it publicized a new vulnerability revealed in Java in the last hours?

  There is no new version of Java from now, as later Java 8 update 45, released April 14, 2015. It is important to note that I first installed the 32-bit version of Java to get the status 'up-to-date' green, but later also installed the 64-bit version of Java (like I need instead for my 64-bit Eclipse). Would he have the vulnerability indicator trigger? Is there a vulnerability in Java 64 bit which is not present in the 32-bit Setup?

  I've seen a few similar questions about Flash plugin, but I have already disabled Flash completely. It is about Java.

  I'm on Firefox for Windows 32-bit. I am running Windows 7.

  A version of Firefox 32 bit will only consider Java 32 bits version.

  Note that Java is thus affected.

  • [711412/forums/contributors/711412] Hacking Team and Flash and Java 0-day!
  • http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/two-new-Flash-exploits-surface-from-hacking-team-combine-with-Java-0-day/
  • http://www.ZDNet.com/article/two-further-critical-Flash-zero-days-appear-from-hacking-team-breach/

• Shockwave Flash says Firefox is vulnerable and requires the update when it has been updated.

  After opening a page, Firefox gave a warning that "Shockwave Flash is vulnerable and needs to be updated". I went to get.adobe.com and updated to 17.0.0.169, but the warning was repeated and the blocked content. I checked youtube, which would play music and videos tutorial DIY of two tests without any problem, but still repeat the warning of block. I checked the Addons Manager, who said that he had to update Flash, but when I checked adobe it said I had the latest update. Manager of Addons for Flash, "always enable" under dimmed, the option 'request to activate' selected but grayed out when I clicked on the menu drop-down button, and the option "never activate" standard black text.

  After seeing a few other similar questions recently, I tried the answer to "Force a Ping of Blocklist"
  https://wiki.Mozilla.org/Blocklisting/testing#Forcing_a_Blocklist_Ping
  .. who is not "defined" in the Console of the browser and had no effect on the issue.

  Hello von_tyrone, the latest version of flash, you need to update because it fixes several vulnerabilities is Flash Player 18.0.0.194. It is available at https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html

• flash player mode disable how vulnerable protected?

  Lastest 38 FF now allows me to easily turn off protected mode FP which seems to heal my FP quite common crashes. The question I have is how vulnerable will I be if protected mode is disabled? I use FF with FP disabled for quite a while now with little inconvenience because almost everyone is using HTML. I'd appreciate comments everyone. Thank you

  It is obviously not safer, but in the real world (as long as you keep flash, your operating system, Firefox and your anti-virus software updated) it will not have a significant impact on your security. just stay smart online and use your common sense, do not install or click on things that look too good to be true.

• Excite Pro AT10LE-A108 - Android update for several issues of OpenSSL

  Fortunately more Android version avoids the bug of software, but there is a new raft of bugs that Android is vulnerable to the:

  http://www.eWEEK.com/security/OpenSSL-finds-and-fixes-7-new-security-flaws.html

  Is there a plan to fix the latter with an update?
  Of course, it would take some time, because I think that the latest version of Android 4.4.3 is still vulnerable.

  Clearly Toshiba will know a lot more about details.

  > Is there any plan to fix the latter with an update?
  Since this is a user to user community, I put t think someone will be able to provide more information on these updates or patches.

  > Of course it would take a long time, because I think that the latest version of Android 4.4.3 is still vulnerable.
  From my point of view of a few such bugs should be fixed by google android developers...
  Just Tablet manufacturers add some special software features and customize the Android system for hardware built into the smartphone and tablet devices.

• Incompatibility of logging postfix in OpenSSL versions after the server upgrade

  In my postfix logs, I get:

  "WARNING: Library Runtime vs. compile header version mismatch: OpenSSL 2.0.0 is not compatible with OpenSSL 0.9.8.

  When smtp or smtpd connections are attempted. It is true that it is only a warning and the connection goes ahead, but someone has an idea where can be found the error?

  This has happened only since the update of my Mac Mini (used as home to 10.11.4 Server) and Server 5.1!

  I'm seeing this too. So far there is no sequel, and I don't think it will be one question (other than the warning message). I doubt that this can be corrected without re - compile Postfix against the correct library/header. Will examine however.

• The vulnerability is the CC and the fields of e-mail when sending group messages?

  I have a friend who is a challenge to me when I advised her to use the BCC field instead of the CC field to send group messages.
  I've been in there for years and this was one of the fundamental pieces of advice that we would give users on our network to prevent the spread of the virus and spam and to be perfectly honest, I thought it was a given since e-mail is sent in plaintext and therefore can be analyzed.  The question I have, are vulnerable to what Email address when it is used in the CC field or virus and malware seeks to steal addresses?  Also to throw away spammers as well.

  Thank you, sugi2k.

  Hi sugi2k,

  With assistance from the ICC is also how to send group messages, but I do it mainly for individual members of the group do not get to see all addresses of electronic mail to any person to whom I sent the message.  As far as I know, there is no almost difference between using the field or the CC field to send emails (although IAB a little better to hide the address, but it can still be found if you are the recipient or the sender of this JIU).  In general, this isn't how the malware and hackers work.  That's all simply too cumbersome and time-consuming to do by checking the addresses in the individual emails (if it is possible and very difficult to defend against if they can intercept the mail-, but generally found from the account of the recipient and not the sending account and generally because that most people choose to automatically add new senders of e-mail to their list of contacts and this is where the vulnerability usually occurs).

  Here is an article on the differences between the BCC and CC: http://email.about.com/od/emailnetiquette/a/cc_and_bcc.htm.  You will notice that it addresses of anonymity than the main on safety (but there are benefits of security regarding anonymity and the inabiility of other recipients to view the BCC recipients).

  Most malware and piracy occurs because someone comes to your contact list or address book or see everything simply your email address somewhere (maybe of you sent to someone who has been infected or a real pirate) and uses different techniques to make it look like SPAM and other things they send is from you when you're not actually send anything.  If they arrived at your list of book or contact addresses or someone that you are listed as a contact (probably using another method - I don't think these fields themselves are more susceptible to malware or hacking than anything else on your computer - if they have installed the keystroker malicious software or programs (everything that you type can be made available to them, unless detect you and remove malware or hacking tool), they can send to each of them (probably with an attempt to infect their systems included as well).

  In short, while they are not invulnerable, they are as safe as anything else (although IAB will limit the number of people who see the addresses of any group that can help their share where you don't know if they have been compromised) on your system.  The real problem with the e-mails is not sending them, but to receive for having "a surprise" with her that compromise your system and allows a person access to your contacts or address book - but they will not often also for entries in the messages sent and if they do, then the entries to one of these fields on your computer If it has been compromised is possible (not only e-mails but documents and about anything).

  If you are concerned that these things, use a program to encrypt messages and require recipients to have a decryption code to open.  It can still be broken by a pirate, but is much more difficult and requires a much more sophisticated hacker.

  I hope this helps.

  Good luck!