Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


To trust or not to trust Red Hat, that is the question

I like Linux. I like Red Hat and Fedora Linux. I use them every day. What I don't like, though, is not knowing what's what with the recent security break-in into the RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora file servers.

What happened, we're told by Paul W. Frields, the Fedora project leader, "some Fedora servers were illegally accessed" during the week of August 11th. OK, fair enough, Web servers are broken into all the time. Frields then added, "The intrusion into the servers was quickly discovered, and the servers were taken offline." OK, that's what they should have done, but then things get more interesting.

As a result of the Fedora break-in, Red Hat checked into its RHEL servers and, Frields wrote, "Detected an intrusion of certain of its computer systems and has issued a communication to Red Hat Enterprise Linux users." Excuse me, your people found out that your community Linux servers had been compromised before they found out that there were problems with the business Linux servers?

In a critical Red Hat security advisory, Red Hat security team, wrote, "While the investigation into the intrusion is on-going, our initial focus was to review and test the distribution channel we use with our customers, Red Hat Network (RHN) and its associated security measures. Based on these efforts, we remain highly confident that our systems and processes prevented the intrusion from compromising RHN or the content distributed via RHN and accordingly believe that customers who keep their systems updated using Red Hat Network are not at risk. We are issuing this alert primarily for those who may obtain Red Hat binary packages via channels other than those of official Red Hat subscribers."

But, the "intruder was able to sign a small number of OpenSSH packages relating only to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 (i386 and x86_64 architectures only) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (x86_64 architecture only)." OpenSSH, for those of you aren't administrators or remote users, is an extremely important secure remote connectivity Linux/Unix program. If you use OpenSSH with a known signature, a hacker who knows the signature can easily pick your network locks and gain access to your systems. In others words: Not Good.

Now, Red Hat has issued a way to detect OpenSSH files that have been tampered with. In addition, Red Hat has issued fixed OpenSSH files. There is no evidence, wrote Frields, that any Fedora was compromised, but to stay on the safe side, " we have decided to convert to new Fedora signing keys."

OK, so Fedora and Red Hat have done most of the right stuff. What they haven't done, though -- and I've asked -- is explain how the servers were broken into in the first place. That bugs me.

I hammer on proprietary software companies, like VMware and Microsoft when their systems blow up, so I can't just ignore this situation with Red Hat. So, while I'm very pleased that Red Hat is patching any possibly violated files, I still would like to know 1) How the sites were breeched in the first place and 2) What steps Red Hat will be taking to make sure it doesn't happen again.

This isn't too much to ask for. After all, it's exactly what I ask of proprietary vendors when they blow it. To fully trust Red Hat, I'd really like answers to my questions.

What People Are Saying

Digust

If it were Microsoft, most likely you wouldn't even know any of its servers have been compromised.

There are no absolutely secure [generic purpose sophisticated enough] OSes and if you are pro open source then you have to understand that external access has to be granted to Fedora infrastructure servers.

And I'm sure that the signing process will be changed in order to prevent such a gaffe in the future.

Attacks

And remember the Linux Mint site was hacked just days ago. It smells bad... smells like a sneaky campaign by one of the usual suspects...

"OK, so Fedora and Red Hat

"OK, so Fedora and Red Hat have done most of the right stuff. What they haven't done, though, and I've asked is explain how the servers were broken into in the first place. That bugs me."

Have you noted that the announcement says this is a ongoing investigation and more details will be provided later? You don't want anyone to giving out wrong information. So why not just wait?

why not ?

Because the more pressure we (you, me, and anyone else who cares) put on RH through the press and newsgroups, the sooner the whole story will come out.
Even if the story makes RH look "bad" - corrupt employees, lax auditing, or unpatched security holes, or other ugly FACTS.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Then we will decide to continue to use RH or go elsewhere.

horse manure!

Do you even WORK in IT?

The more pressure you put on the teams investigating this issue, the more likely you will be to get a mixed up, confused image of what has happened mixed with conjecture and of course an incomplete report.
Not to mention it will take LONGER to get the job done.

We tend to get hounded all the time at my workplace, and end up in the exact same situation.
Multiple stories, a lot of conjecture and the whole process taking longer as a result.

Sitting back and asking for status updates in a TIMELY fashion is much more productive.

Say hi to bubba

Because the more pressure we (you, me, and anyone else who cares) put on RH through the press and newsgroups, the sooner the whole story will come out.
Even if the story makes RH look "bad" - corrupt employees, lax auditing, or unpatched security holes, or other ugly FACTS.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Then we will decide to continue to use RH or go elsewhere.
>
>
One reason Redhat may not be saying anything is that they're working with the Feds to track you and your script kiddy buddies down. Looks you may soon be getting to know someone named Bubba really,really well....

We want info not FUD

And FUD could be a very real side effect of this sort of information, released prematurely.

While I fully agree that we are all better of knowing exactly what happened, I'd much rather wait for the info, until the evidence has been properly processed and the information can be trusted.

Also, there is no need to put extra pressure on these guys, when they have already indicated that details will follow. My view of this would have been a whole lot different, had they chosen to try to cover the mess up.

Instead of pressuring, I vote for giving them space to figure out what hit them and to prepare trustworthy info for the community.

/Thomas