ck VS OpenSSL

Maybe I'm missing something, but x is not volatile and the compiler is free to assume that it is not modified concurrently outside the bounds of C's memory model. Compilers can and do hoist out loop invariants, and https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck/commit/b54ae5c4ace9b94442bbb46858449069f566d269 seems like an example of compilers doing what you say they don't. What am I missing?

Recommend checking out http://concurrencykit.org instead.

If you're interested in how other approaches work, or how one achieves concurrency on shared mutable state without mutual exclusion, would recommend checking out concurrency kit.

There are plenty of practical solutions to the safe memory reclamation problem in C. The language just doesn't force one on you.

From epoch-based reclamation (https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck/blob/master/include/ck_..., especially with the multiplexing extension to Fraser's classic scheme), to quiescence schemes (https://liburcu.org/), or hazard pointers (https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/synchron..., or https://pvk.ca/Blog/2020/07/07/flatter-wait-free-hazard-poin...)... or even simple using a type-stable (https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin...) memory allocator.

In my experience, it's easier to write code that is resilient to hiccups in C than in Java. Solving SMR with GC only offers something close to lock-freedom when you can guarantee global GC pauses are short enough... and common techniques to bound pauses, like explicitly managed freelists land you back in the same problem space as C.

ck - Concurrency primitives, safe memory reclamation mechanisms and non-blocking data structures. BSD-2-Clause

Indeed they do, https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck

ENV OPENSSL_PREFIX=/opt/openssl ENV SSL_CERT_FILE=/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt WORKDIR /tmp RUN git clone --branch OpenSSL_1_0_2n https://github.com/openssl/openssl.git RUN cd openssl RUN ./config shared --prefix=$OPENSSL_PREFIX --openssldir=$OPENSSL_PREFIX/ssl RUN make RUN make install RUN rvm install 2.6.0 -C --with-openssl-dir=$OPENSSL_PREFIX ENV PATH /usr/local/rvm/bin:$PATH RUN rvm --default use ruby-2.6.0 ENV PATH /usr/local/rvm/bin:/usr/local/rvm/rubies/ruby-2.6.0/bin:$PATH ENV GEM_HOME /usr/local/rvm/rubies/ruby-2.6.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0

Today, April 7th, 2024, marks the 10-year anniversary since CVE-2014-0160 was published. This security vulnerability known as "Heartbleed" was a flaw in the OpenSSL cryptography software, the most popular option to implement Transport Layer Security (TLS). In more layman's terms, if you type https:// in your browser address bar, chances are high that you are interacting with OpenSSL.

At this point I pretty much understand the entire process on how the xz backdoor came to be: its execution stages, extraction from binary "test" files etc. But one thing puzzles me: how can the ifunc mechanism be used to replace something like RSA_public_decrypt? Granted this probably stems from my lack of understanding of ifunc, but I was under the impression that in order for the ifunc mechanism to work in your code, you have to explicitly mark specific function with multiple implementations with __attribute__ ((ifunc ("the_resolver_function"))). Looking at the source code of the RSA function in question, ifunc attribute isn't present:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/crypto/rsa/rsa_crpt.c#L51

So how does the backdoor actually replace the call? Does this means that the ifunc mechanism can be used to override pretty much anything on the system?

OpenSSL and Go crypt/tls has no support yet, so none of the webservers that depend on them support it. Apache, Nginx, and Caddy, they all need upstream ECH support first.

- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/7482

- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/22938

- https://github.com/golang/go/issues/63369

If I'm understanding the draft correctly, I think the webserver you're hosting your sites on would need it implemented as it requires private keys and ECH configuration. In the example of nginx since it uses openssl, openssl would need to implement it. I found an issue on their Github but it's still open: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/7482

I confirmed that the systm was on 1.1.1f with openssl version command. Hmm...... I check the openssl version in the repo with apt list... LOL package names wernt helpful. finally went to the repo pages and found that its still on 1.1.1f, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl. Meenwhile I looked up the version history on https://www.openssl.org/ and saw that 1.1.1v was released at the beginning of this month... ok. I can understand it it was out less then 30 days. I looked up when f came out, end of MARCH 2020. NEARLY 3-1/2 YEARS