+1 -Bryan
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 5:06 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
