[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability

To: ldap <openldap-technical@openldap.org>
Subject: Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
From: Jens Vagelpohl <jens@dataflake.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:58:47 +0200
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dataflake.org; s=default; t=1436975881; bh=E/5CYaDYB7hLs4kvU1uH9xZKKzMQx3UrNtbGyGVKp0w=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=Aqo1CuEWwI7SZ6YiT8oxrLwjGSmE2QF2ZzS4/YfdBQK/Hwl4hI4DxTwQ4TamLdcJt EwOqnVf3tM4bfoUo6Ha7mq79oPhwx9pILg9Pqh33Se4T3YCGKEPDLDK7GR1O3/IdDp wI4LCjYbaxSrPtnkqY0YyQwmhK/MS1w8CMI/hBr0=
In-reply-to: <55A67DD7.8090201@symas.com>
References: <F69610DD-64F7-4F75-9A88-2AAE703AF810@dataflake.org> <20150715151646.GE27475@homeworld.netbsd.org> <55A67DD7.8090201@symas.com>

> On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:35 , Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> wrote:
> 
> No ITS needed, this code was already rewritten in HEAD, ITS#7506.

Hi Howard,

Since that ITS is several years old I guess the fix is not in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4?

jens

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Follow-Ups:
- Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
  - From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@netbsd.org>

References:
- OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
  - From: Jens Vagelpohl <jens@dataflake.org>
- Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
  - From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@netbsd.org>
- Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

Prev by Date: Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
Next by Date: Re: OpenLDAP and DH parameter size / LogJam vulnerability
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread