[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: testing and review requested for Wheezy update of apache2


I think we should be fairly safe with both options. That is both
releasing your fixed version and ship 2.2.32 directly. Apache have a
rather good reputation on backwards compatiblity.

Unfortunately I could not test myself as my servers were running i386
and the debs were for amd64.

Best regards,

// Ola

On 17 January 2017 at 17:59, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@orangeseeds.org> wrote:
> On 2016-12-28 15:44:25, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> Hi Ola,
>> On Friday, 23 December 2016 23:56:45 CET Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>>> the Debian LTS team would like to fix the security issues which are
>>> currently open in the Wheezy version of apache2:
>>> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-8743
>>> Would you like to take care of this yourself?
>> The fix for that is very invasive and may well break some things. I would wait
>> with a backport until the fix has seen more exposure, both upstream and in
>> stretch (the fix will migrate from sid in a few days).
>> Also, there is some work upstream to get the changes backported to 2.2 in a
>> separate 2.2.x-merge-http-strict branch [1]. But it has not landed in the
>> 2.2.x branch, yet.
>> I will share with you any insights I get from backporting the changes to
>> jessie. But it is somewhat unlikely that I will have time to do the backport
>> to wheezy myself.
> Hi!
> Thanks for the response. We'll be happy to take on the update for
> wheezy, and hopefully our work will be useful for Jessie as well...
> I started looking at the 2.2.x backport, which has now landed in the
> [2.2.32 release][1]. I unfortunately don't think we can use the release
> directly, because it is 10 minor releases away from the version
> currently in Wheezy (2.2.22), but I'd be glad to be proven wrong... It
> may be better to just follow upstream here as well, since their 2.2
> branch is designed for LTS support. But they do fix way more stuff than
> just security issues in there...
> [1]: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.html
> The patch is far from trivial and it's a bit all over the place. I've
> gathered it into a single patch from two upstream commits ([r1777405][]
> and [r1777999][]), taken from the [2.2.32 tag][].
> [r1777405]: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1777405
> [r1777999]: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1777999
> [2.2.32 tag]: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.32/?view=log
> I hammered at the code until the patch actually builds and I tested it
> summarily in a wheezy VM, but i'm not sure where or what to test in
> there... There's a webserver and "it works!" but that's about it for
> now. I still need to review the new patch and compare it with upstream
> to see if I really followed the spirit of the patch - so far I just made
> sure the chunks apply cleanly...
> Attached is a debdiff of the resulting package, which has been uploaded
> to the [usual location][].
> [usual location]: https://people.debian.org/~anarcat/debian/wheezy-lts/
> I would need people to start testing the package at this point, not
> necessarily in production considering how big the change is, but your
> comfort level will vary with the severity and complexity of services. :)
> Pointers on how to reproduce actual security issues would be welcome,
> along with code reviews.
> I am especially concerned by the proxy changes in the 2.2.x branch we
> don't have in our code base: since the vulnerability implies mostly
> proxy chains, this could mean we can't fix the issue properly without a
> full backport of all those changes..
> In fact, I wouldn't feel completely confident in this upload unless we
> ship 2.2.32. Apache's codebase really reflects its name ("a patchy
> server") so it's quite hard to figure out what exactly is going on in
> there. They are also quite liberal in the changes they do - the patch
> basically rewrites request handling completely!
> Thanks for any feedback,
> A.
> --
> Il est sage de nous réconcilier avec notre adolescence ; haїr, mépriser,
> nier ou simplement oublier l’adolescent que nous fûmes est en soi une
> attitude adolescente.
>                         - Daniel Pennac, Comme un roman

 --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/  ola@inguza.com                    Folkebogatan 26            \
|  opal@debian.org                   654 68 KARLSTAD            |
|  http://inguza.com/                Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9  /

Reply to: