This sounds awful.. Anyone with a better background in security want to jump in and tell us how big a deal this is in practice?
ps. I should say that I have come to loathe McAfee in terms of their shoddy and sloppy false positive behavior, but this security blog they have is consistently good.
Quote
Almost two years ago in 2006 Debian decided to clean up their OpenSSL implementation. They found a few lines of code that were causing Valgrind and Purify to complain about access to uninitialized memory. Without a major investigation into the purpose of the suspect lines of code they were simply removed.
...
For the purposes of all the OpenSSL algorithms there was no deficiency. Encryption and decryption and hashes would be calculated correctly. The problem was that the PRNG used for generating keys by the OpenSSL library had been crippled when those critical lines were removed back in 2006. This was not discovered until just this week when Luciano Bello discovered that without those lines the only ‘random’ data used to seed the PRNG was the PID of the OpenSSL process. On many Linux systems the PID is limited to a positive signed 16 bit value. This means there are only 32,767 possibilities. When new keys and certificates were generated by OpenSSL they relied on this number to provide all of their entropy.
ps. I should say that I have come to loathe McAfee in terms of their shoddy and sloppy false positive behavior, but this security blog they have is consistently good.










- carpe noctem


