[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B0C0C80.8060800@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:40:32 +0100
From: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: coley <coley@...re.org>, MySQL Security Team <security@...ql.com>
Subject: Re: mysql-5.1.41
Just small correction - CVE-2008-2079 should be listed of course in
all occurrences below (focused on proper links) and made
two typos :(.
Jan.
--
Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> looked further into these issues.
>
> A, wrt http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32167
>
> You are right, that CVE-2008-2079 was originally assigned to:
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32167
>
> On "[6 May 2008 11:16] Sergei Golubchik" states:
>
> please, note in the manual that it's CVE-2008-2079
>
> But last comment on this bug mentions:
>
> <quote>
>
> [12 Nov 4:50] Paul DuBois
>
> Noted in 5.1.41, 5.5.0, 6.0.14 changelogs.
>
> Additional corrections were made for the symlink-related privilege
> problem originally addressed in MySQL 5.1.24. The original fix did
> not correctly handle the data directory path name if it contained
> symlinked directories in its path, and the check was made only at
> table-creation time, not at table-opening time later.
>
> </quote>
>
> Also MySQL-5.1.41 news file now contains:
>
> Important Change: Security Fix: Additional
> corrections were made for the symlink-related
> privilege problem originally addressed in MySQL
> 5.1.24. The original fix did not correctly handle
> the data directory path name if it contained
> symlinked directories in its path, and the check
> was made only at table-creation time, not at
> table-opening time later. (Bug#32167, CVE-2008-2079)"
>
> Consequence:
> ===========
>
> So I think we will need a new CVE id as incomplete fix for CVE-2009-2079.
> Relevant patch is here (2845 Georgi Kodinov 2009-11-03)
> http://lists.mysql.com/commits/89940
>
> Cc-ed MySQL security team to confirm this assumption.
>
> B, wrt to http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=39277
>
> This is potential security issue, but the proposed patch didn't
> made it neither into 5.0.88, nor into 5.1.41 releases.
> In fact it was committed only to 6.0.9-alpha release
> ("Pushed into 6.0.9-alpha" comment from that bug).
> So we will need to wait a little bit for patch "stabilization".
>
>
> Conclusion - so two CVE ids are needed:
> ---------------------------------------
> 1, One for incomplete fix for CVE-2009-2079 issue) --
> "and the check was made only at table-creation time, not at
> table-opening time later"
>
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32167
> http://lists.mysql.com/commits/89940
>
> 2, The second one for the "MySQL clients linked against OpenSSL did not
> check
> server certificates presented by a server linked against yaSSL" issue
>
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=47320
>
> Sergei, please confirm / disprove the above.
>
> Thanks && Regards, Jan.
> --
> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
>
>
> Josh Bressers wrote:
>> As best as I can tell, we only need one CVE id (two issues, but one
>> already has
>> an id).
>>
>> MySQL clients before version 5.1.41 linked against OpenSSL would not
>> properly
>> check certificates presented by a MySQL server linked against yaSSL.
>> This could
>> possibly lead to a man in the middle type of attack on the SSL
>> connection.
>>
>> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=47320
>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/news-5-1-41.html
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
