This sounds like a solid plan for deprecating support for older OSes and
updating our requirements for OpenSSL.
Thanks,
Steven
On 2/25/19, 9:06 PM, "Masaori Koshiba" <masa...@apache.org> wrote:
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
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
