[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120323190036.GE28663@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:00:36 +0100
From: Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: openssl security issue or not? (CVE Request?)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:29:33AM -0500, Ivan Nestlerode wrote:
> Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de> wrote on 03/23/2012 11:13:20 AM:
> > From: Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>
> > To: OSS Security List <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
> > Cc: Ivan Nestlerode/Cambridge/IBM@...US
> > Date: 03/23/2012 11:13 AM
> > Subject: openssl security issue or not? (CVE Request?)
> >
> > Hi folks, Ivan,
> >
> > This patch:
> > http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=22161
> > fixes a decrypt error return values and according to the changelog
> > "detects symmetric crypto errors"
> >
> > I am not sure if this counts as security issue in the end, but "not
> > detecting a failed decrypt" seems to me like it is a security issue.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Ciao, Marcus
> > (also https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749210 )
>
> Marcus,
>
> I don't think that this change needs separate tracking as a security issue
> since there is no guarantee that you can detect symmetric decryption
> errors anyway (it is not that hard for random gibberish to decrypt with
> correct PKCS#5 padding). This change made its way into their CVS first,
> but it was actually meant to go in along with another change that is a
> security fix and already has a CVE entry associated with it
> (CVE-2012-0884):
> http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=22238
>
> If a Linux distribution picks up the fix for CVE-2012-0884 then they will
> want to pick up change 22161 at the same time since the fix for the
> security vulnerability will generally cause symmetric decryption errors
> when it kicks in and things get very confusing for the end user without
> change 22161 (they will frequently get junk results with a success return
> value instead of an error return value). Both were reported to OpenSSL at
> the same time, but the CVE change was submitted later because it was more
> complicated and required more review and discussion.
>
> Hope that helps,
Yes, thanks Ivan and Jan!
Ciao, Marcus
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.
