7 replies to this topic

[Rob van der Does]

Are STB's liable to this vulnerability: http://www.bloomberg...nux-to-mac.html ?

[littlesat]

Do we use bash?

[Pale-Rider]

for a little more info you can also have a read of this thread.

 

http://www.legitfta.com/forum/showthread.php?21383-Bash-test

[betacentauri]

As far as I know images use busybox instead of bash. So they shouldn't be affected.

[Pale-Rider]

well according to the post I quoted above the ATV image is coming back as vulnerable to this. tested with the method outlined in the PC world article here.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2687763/safe-from-shellshock-how-to-protect-your-home-computer-from-the-bash-shell-bug.html

[MiLo]

The standard OpenPLi box is NOT vulnerable because it does not run bash. If you have manually installed "bash", then the box may become vulnerable. However, you'll also need something to expose the shell to the outside, which is something that the webinterface does not do.

[Erik Slagter]

All "known" images use the built-in shell from busybox, not bash.

 

But besides that, you'd only be vulnerable if you'd expose a shell to a hostile environment (like internet), which mostly is a stupid thing to do anyway. I don't get the commotion actually.

[Erik Slagter]

Wow that's spooky, the same content at the same time!

Edited by Erik Slagter, 27 September 2014 - 08:30.