http://heartbleed.com/

[Kimmo Paasiala]

On 8.4.2014, at 17.05, Dirk Engling <erdgeist at erdgeist.org> wrote:

> On 08.04.14 15:45, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> 
>>    I am trying to understand the implications of this bug in the
>> context of a vulnerable client, connecting to a server that does not
>> have this extension.  e.g. a client app linked against 1.xx thats
>> vulnerable talking to a server that is running something from RELENG_8
>> in the base (0.9.8.x).  Is the server still at risk ? Will the client
>> still bleed information ?
> 
> If the adversary is in control of the network and can MITM the
> connection, then yes. The client leaks random chunks of up to 64k
> memory, and that is for each heartbeat request the server sends.
> 
>  erdgeist
> 

Going back to this original report of the vulnerability. Has it been established with certainty that the attacker would first need MITM capability to exploit the vulnerability? I’m asking this because MITM capability is not something that just any attacker can do. Also if this is true then it can be argued that the severity of this vulnerabilty has be greatly exaggerated.

-Kimmo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/attachments/20140410/f48556ed/attachment.sig>