| 1 |
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:53:43 -0800 Grant wrote: |
| 2 |
> glsa-check is working fine, it was a slotted issue. Still curious |
| 3 |
> about a way to check for statically linked packages. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
There is no simple solution for this... USE flags static and |
| 6 |
static-libs handle cases where there is a choice between static and |
| 7 |
non-static version. In theory it is possible that some package |
| 8 |
(like boot loader helper) can be linked only statically, thus you |
| 9 |
will not be able to find it by USE flag. Though probability of this |
| 10 |
is very low, and due to a special nature of such binaries (or |
| 11 |
libraries) attack surface is even less. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So you may assume your system reasonable secure if: |
| 14 |
- all GLSAs are applied; |
| 15 |
- there are no preserved libraries left (all packages using |
| 16 |
vulnerable libs must be rebuilt); |
| 17 |
- all static binaries and libraries depending directly or |
| 18 |
indirectly on vulnerable packages are rebuild; |
| 19 |
- there are no running processes using deleted files (reboot is a |
| 20 |
brute, but effective way to do this, otherwise one should grep lsof |
| 21 |
-n output for "(deleted)" files in use). |
| 22 |
- kernel should be updated to the latest version in branch if it is |
| 23 |
still supported, or upgrade to another branch, preferably LTS, if |
| 24 |
it is EOLed already. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have not seen GLSAs for kernel in ages, though old kernels |
| 27 |
definitely have serious security issues, and they may be far more |
| 28 |
serious than Ghost glibc bug. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives