snyk VS OpenSSL

There are a number of ways that you can install the Snyk CLI on your machine, ranging from using the available stand-alone executables to using package managers such as Homebrew for macOS and Scoop for Windows.

There's tons of tools to solve each of these problems Snyk for vulnerability scanning, tons of license checker plugins (like we use license-webpack-plugin which generates the license text for everything we distribute and fails a build if a license doesn't have one of our allowlisted licenses.

oh, such companies already exist: For example Snyk

Snyk provides security score and vulnerability count badges, which you can link to the relevant pages, as in these examples:

If you app is dockerized I would recommend adding something like Snyk to make sure your image is safe.

Note: I remind you that we support multiple strategy for vulnerabilities like Sonatype or Snyk.

My name is Adam, and I am a software engineer working at Snyk for the past 2.5 years. Over the past year, I have been leading a few projects that spanned multiple teams. My colleague is a tech lead at Snyk, and he’s been coaching people on how to lead projects effectively for a few years now.

So I'm curious, how are businesses building iOS apps securely? Could a tool like Snyk replace a manual audit, or is it a good idea to have an initial manual audit of our desired environment?

Ideally, software can quickly go from development to production. Continuous deployment and delivery are some processes that make this possible. Continuous deployment means establishing an automated pipeline from development to production while continuous delivery means maintaining the main branch in a deployable state so that a deployment can be requested at any time. Predecos uses these tools. When a commit goes into master, the code is pushed directly to the public environment. Deployment also occurs when a push is made to a development branch enabling local/e2e testing before push to master. In this manner the master branch can be kept clean and ready for deployment most of the time. Problems that surface resulting from changes are visible before reaching master. Additional automated tools are used. Docker images are built for each microservice on commit to a development or master branch, a static code analysis is performed by SonarCloud revealing quality and security problems, Snyk provides vulnerability analysis and CodeClimate provides feedback on code quality while Coveralls provides test coverage. Finally, a CircleCI build is done. Each of these components use badges which give a heads-up display of the health of the system being developed. Incorporating each of these tools into the development process will keep the code on a trajectory of stability. For example, eliminating code smells, security vulnerabilities, and broken tests before merging a pull-request (PR) into master. Using Husky on development machines to ensure that code is well linted and locally tested before it is allowed to be pushed to source-control management (SCM). Applying additional processes such as writing tests around bugs meaning reintroduction of a given bug would cause a test to fail. The automated tools would then require that test to be fixed before push to SCM meaning fewer bugs will be reintroduced. Proper development processes and automation have a strong synergy.

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