oss-security - Re: CVE Request (minor) -- Python 3.2: DoS when matching certificate with many '*' wildcard characters {was: CVE Request (minor) -- python-backports-ssl_match_hostname: Denial of service when matching certificate with many '*' wildcard characters }

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130523135827.03724f4b@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:58:27 +0200
From: Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com>
To: kseifried@...hat.com
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>,
        "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>,
        Florian Weimer
 <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Ian Weller <ianweller@...oraproject.org>
Subject: Re: CVE Request (minor) -- Python 3.2: DoS when
 matching certificate with many '*' wildcard characters {was: 
 CVE Request (minor) --  python-backports-ssl_match_hostname: Denial of
 service when matching certificate with many '*' wildcard characters }

On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:08:36 -0600 Kurt Seifried wrote:

> > Given that CVE-2013-2099 was assigned to Python 3 ssl,
> > CVE-2013-2098 seems like the one to reject as dupe.
> 
> My reasoning here was that Python 2 and 3 constitute "forked" or
> separate code bases, so fall under CVE SPLIT.evidence includes:
> 
> 1) Python 2to3, a lot of Python code needs work to move from 2 to 3
> 2) This feature was added as standard in Python 3 and then later back
> ported to 2

There are surely differences in other parts of python code, but in this
case, affected functionality is the same in python 3 and
python-backports-ssl_match_hostname (the latter just contains a
functionality copied from the former).  Given that affected code is
identical, I don't believe differences in other parts of codebases not
related to the flaw should force split.  I.e. I'd follow:

AB4) If there are multiple products, vendors, distributors, or users of
the same core codebase, then DO NOT SPLIT based solely on
distinguishing between products.

Additionally, the same code was also found embedded elsewhere:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=709066#16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963260#c11

I don't think we want to give every project embedding that source a
separate CVE id.

-- 
Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Security Response Team

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.