Our conclusion is below 1). Move minimum OpenSSL version of ATS v9.0.0 to 1.0.2.
2). ATS v9.0.0 also drop support for the following platforms because of openssl version - CentOS 6 (OpenSSL v1.0.1e) - Ubuntu 14.04 (OpenSSL v1.0.1f) 3). ATS v8.x.x keeps OpenSSL 1.0.1 support until EOL For the vulnerabilities, I forgot about that. Thanks for pointing out. Thanks, Masaori 2019年2月25日(月) 23:13 Susan Hinrichs <shinr...@verizonmedia.com.invalid>: > Masaori, > > Sounds like good reasoning. I am completely ok with moving the minimum > with 1.0.2 as long as CentOS 6 is dropped at the same time. > > WRT the vulnerabilities in 1.0.1, RedHat has been cherry-picking back > security fixes from newer openssl's into their Openssl 1.0.1 version, so it > is probably not that dangerous to use it. > > Susan > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 7:25 PM Masaori Koshiba <masa...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > This is incompatible change, so the change will be done on next major > > release, ATS 9. > > We’re going to have OpenSSL 1.0.1 with CentOS 6 support on ATS 8 anyway. > It > > looks like > > ATS 8 will end of life at similar timing of CentOS 6[*1]. So people using > > CentOS 6 can use > > OpenSSL 1.0.1 and ATS 8 until late 2020 by taking their own risks. > > > > # EOLs > > CentOS 6 : November 30, 2020 > > ATS 8 : September 2020 > > ATS 9 : July 2021 > > > > ATS 9 looks good timing for dropping support of OpenSSL 1.0.1 and CentOS > 6. > > > > FWIW, 15 vulnerabilities of OpenSSL were found last 2 years[*1]. I’m not > > sure how many of > > them affect version 1.0.1, but it looks quite dangerous to use it. > > > > [*1] > > > > > https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-fe8a0be91ee3e7dea812e8694491e1dde5b75e6d > > [*2] https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html > > > > Thanks, > > Masaori > > > > 2019年2月23日(土) 5:39 Susan Hinrichs <shinr...@verizonmedia.com.invalid>: > > > > > A quick search shows only instructions for how to build openssl 1.0.2 > > from > > > source on Rhel6/Centos6. If there is an epel-like rpm it does not seem > > to > > > be well advertised. > > > > > > I'd suggest keeping the openssl minimum version to 1.0.1 until we stop > > > support for Centos 6. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:41 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Susan Hinrichs < > > > shinr...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Definitely at least drawing the line at openssl 1.0.1 makes sense. > > As > > > > Leif > > > > > notes moving to 1.0.2 for the baseline means that some supported > > > > > distributions cannot use the system openssl. For Centos6 anyway we > > > > require > > > > > a replacement for the system compiler which you can acquire from > > > > > devtoolset. Is there a similar epel mechanism to get a package > for a > > > > more > > > > > modern openssl? > > > > > > > > > > > > I could not find one on my existing CentOS 6 images, which has both > > EPEL > > > > and DevToolSet yum repos enabled. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t > > > > other, non-standard repos with newer OpenSSLs, but I think we should > be > > > > cautious recommending people to enable “rogue” yum repos in general. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > — Leif > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:53 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:37 PM, Masaori Koshiba < > masa...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi all, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Could we bump minimum requirements of OpenSSL version to 1.0.2 on > > > next > > > > >>> major release? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I just noticed that SSLUtils says that Traffic Server requires an > > > > OpenSSL > > > > >>> library version 0.9.4 or greater [*1]. > > > > >>> But I think nobody is using such old OpenSSL. So we can bump > > minimum > > > > >>> version of OpenSSL. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> According to OpenSSL Release Strategy [*2], version 1.0.2 is > > current > > > > >>> minimum supported version by OpenSSL community. > > > > >>> And version 1.0.1 was end of support 2 years ago (at 2016-12-31). > > > > Version > > > > >>> 1.0.2 looks reasonable choice. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, we should do this for v9.0.0. This would effectively drop > > support > > > > for > > > > >> “stock” CentOS6, which only comes with OpenSSL v1.0.1, but I think > > > > that’s > > > > >> fine. For two reasons: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1) It’s the right thing to require at least 1.0.2, since 1.0.1 is > > not > > > > >> supported. > > > > >> > > > > >> 2) It’s not difficult to install a custom OpenSSL build if > > necessary. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> So, +1 on this, with the amendment that we also drop official > > support > > > > for > > > > >> the following platforms that are currently on the CI: > > > > >> > > > > >> CentOS 6 (OpenSSL v1.0.1e) > > > > >> Ubuntu 14.04 (OpenSSL v1.0.1f) > > > > >> > > > > >> (Debian7 was already dropped, because of lack of compiler > support). > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> > > > > >> — Leif > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
