[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACYkhxhmU74Xsi4H_tBYxY17Y0ovHDdrPfn1pLp1hW6OY6U8dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:47:09 +1000
From: Michael Samuel <mik@...net.net>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [CVE Requests] rsync and librsync collisions
On 13 September 2014 04:39, <cve-assign@...re.org> wrote:
> The short answer is that we neither agree nor disagree at present; we
> think that either any required CVE assignment can be made by us after
> a full public disclosure, or any required CVE assignment can be made
> by a different CNA now.
The bug is publicly disclosed. The exploit isn't (and I believe list rules
dictate that I can't post exploits here).
> MITRE is not currently interested in receiving an advance copy of the
> full public disclosure or any related PoC information from anyone.
> We'll see whether the CNA process above can work.
I don't care who assigns the CVE, but it would be nice to be able to link
the tickets for this together somehow.
An experimental branch of librsync that uses blake2 is available here:
https://github.com/therealmik/librsync/tree/blake2
Dropbox have responded that they have fixed this bug independently, but
have not pushed anything out to their forked librsync github repo.
I have not heard further from the rsync maintainer. I will publicly release
colliding blocks and construction details soon, so if you use rsync on
untrusted files, consider using the -W option to avoid a DoS.
Regards,
Michael
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.
