[openssl-dev] OS X 10.8, x86_64: 01-test_abort.t... sh: line 1: 71522 Abort trap: 6

Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail.com
Sun Mar 20 00:09:34 UTC 2016


> noloader> Allowing a library to make policy decisions for the application is a
> noloader> philosophical debate.
>
> The few places we're using something that drastic is when the internal
> structures can only be seen as corrupt by our own fault.  That's a
> point where you can expect things to go crashing any time, or just
> becoming *more* corrupt.  The application cannot make a policy
> decision at that point, as the virtual rugg has already been pulled
> from under everyone's feet.

Then why not call exit() rather than abort()? (Regardless of what you
do here, its going to violate Apple's App Store policies and probably
cause a rejection).

Also, when configured with -d, that kind of puts you in a debug
configuration. What's the purpose of crashing when the program is
under a debugger? It seems like a raise(SIGTRAP) to snap the debugger
would be a better choice.

> noloader> Allowing data to egress from the security boundary violates security
> noloader> policies, and its not philosophical.
>
> Like I said, find the OPENSSL_die / OPENSSL_assert calls that have
> that potential (and the rugg hasn't already been pulled if they get
> triggered) and open tickets on them.

I'm not sure one leads to the other.

How many times has a user submitted a core dump from an abort()? I'm
guessing very few, and they probably got a curt response from the dev
team.

How many times has OpenSSL perused Apple's, Microsoft's, or <favorite
distros> error reporting website, and opened tickets based on the
error reports? I'm guessing 0.

How many times does the report egress data? 100% of the time.

On the more sarcastic side, NSA, GCHQ and law enforcement has probably
browsed those reports more than the folks they are supposedly provided
for.

Jeff


More information about the openssl-dev mailing list