[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54E9BF65.7040001@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:37:09 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@...enet.co.nz>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2015-0881
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 22/02/2015 7:17 p.m., Kurt Seifried wrote:
> I'm trying to track down information on CVE-2015-0881.
>
> I can't find a squid security contact (security@...id-cache.org
> bounced), there's no security report, and no link to a source code
> patch for this.
- From the "Contact Us page"
(<http://www.squid-cache.org/Support/contact.html>)
squid-bugs @ lists.squid-cache.org
... which goes to me and some other trusted developers. I dont mind
direct contacts for this type of thing, but the main contact address
guarantees someone sees it within a few hrs.
Regarding the CVE:
1) This is the first I've heard about this particular CVE number
assignment.
2) I did have some discusions with JPCERT about _a_ response splitting
vulnerability around those years. But the messages from them were IIRC
about replicating response splitting in a 2.x versions which were
incompletely fixed by:
<http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.5/bugs/#squid-2.5.STABLE7-header_parsing>
(did not get a CVE AFAIK).
3) I have not been able to replicate the #2 issue in the Squid-3
series and several iterations of changes to the parsers there have
been careful to take the above issue into account. So I'm not sure
where the 3.1.10 comes from. Assuming it is the same vulnerability.
>
> This is regarding 3.1.9 and earlier, 3.1.10 was released on 22 Dec
> 2010, so 4+ years ago.
>
> Needless to say I am more than a bit confused. A link to a specific
> code patch/vuln/file would be helpful. Also if anyone knows how to
> contact Squid re security issues properly I'd love to know.
>
I'm not sure 3.1.10 is the right version for attribution on any
response splitting fix. There certainly were no patches solving
anything related to respinse splitting in that version. Some
borderline memory leak vulnerabilities perhapse, but not response
splitting.
NP: Just to confuse things there was a major replacement of the HTTP
request-line parser on the 2015-02-10 which does explicitly fix all
lot of known HTTP request-line parse issues, including a few response
splitting vectors using downgrade to HTTP/0.9 handling. That will only
be in the 3.6 series though.
Amos Jeffries
Squid Software Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU6b9lAAoJELJo5wb/XPRj96YH/AxZFBWFpVoGPVMeNFz+X/NV
C7Z/HgUpYDH04x0wqWJMZH9ew/WiIu+AE7VzI8D83TDv0K9hyY7jctxXHm0Y3yUH
tX4T/oScKuvr7P6i91CB3MQO3TRJvKRHc/SS0V0wRMFZNajf/sS6uaFUjkQzH9Gu
4GVVc8bm1rJtoskeCOrT/EH06Ntb9PNl0CE3DbaEO+3F4e1hpmTGgeqXI6FStXHe
Ftq65qUJ4SbyONpeiXfs66UsBMUMYitBy+5pbv8U5tk0jc8vXlVOIO6Bh7S2uLog
g45mi/jpyLOpjoCD4zktXDOQR6ma+Smo8GEngpjf5SNTfppKucxS1v+H0XDujX8=
=x6x4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
