bottleneck
Choose style:

Author Topic: Shell Shock  (Read 8851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jake

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 11/08/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Shell Shock
« on: September 25, 2014, 09:46:22 am »
Is there any concern about the new "Shell Shock" bash vulnerability with the Almond+?  Is there any immediate action that should be taken to insure that things are secure?

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2014, 10:04:45 am »
None, we use BusyBox which isn't affected by the issue.

Offline jake

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 11/08/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2014, 10:42:34 am »
Great.  I was a little scared when I logged into the ssh and ran the tests, and they seemed to indicate that the vulnerability was present:

Code: [Select]
env X="() { :;} ; echo busted" /bin/sh -c "echo completed"
env X="() { :;} ; echo busted" `which bash` -c "echo completed"


LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2014, 10:52:31 am »
Odd, from what I read, BusyBox is unaffected and we're running the latest build in R066.
I'll have the software team look into it anyhow, just in case, but I'm actually surprised that it's even part of the firmware.

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2014, 11:02:57 am »
Ok, so we're apparently running a  single script using bash, but we'll get this addressed in the next firmware release.
The chance of someone being able to do anything malicious with it is fairly minimal at this point though.
We're not using bash for anything else.

Offline lowdrag

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 25/09/2014
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2014, 09:30:46 pm »
Can we get some real security here by allowing us to use all forms of SSL in the next release?

Please this is a very important factor to security in this age.

And these verification codes are getting annoying. How about another way to use the forums?

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2014, 11:04:04 pm »
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning here, what does SSL have to do with this issue?
It's not as if SSL was that safe anyhow, considering the heartbleed bug. R066 was updated to Open SSL 1.0.1i.

Please keep in mind that the Almond+ is a consumer product, not a corporate security appliance.

As for the verification code, it's to prevent spammers from posting on the forums, but I've changed your account status to Backer now, so you won't have any more issues with your posts.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 11:07:03 pm by Lars »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2014, 01:26:50 am »
Right, so it turns out it's actually not being used and we'll be removing bash in the next firmware update.
We're using ash instead, which is part of BusyBox and it's unaffected by this issue.

Offline v8media

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
bash?
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2014, 07:40:33 pm »
Curious if there are any issues with the Almond+ router with the recent bash vulnerabilities? Is this something that will need to be patched?

Offline vansens

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 02/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: bash?
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2014, 08:47:31 pm »

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: Shell Shock
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2014, 11:58:00 pm »
Topics merged.

 

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 18 queries.

bottleneck