Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CVE-2015-4000 - TLS does not properly convey server's ciphersuite choice

Hash: SHA1

CVE-2015-4000 has been assigned to this vulnerability in the TLS
protocol that was disclosed in section 3.2 of the paper:

   "a flaw in the way TLS composes DHE and DHE_EXPORT. When a
   server selects DHE_EXPORT for a handshake, it proceeds by
   issuing a signed ServerKeyExchange message containing a
   512-bit p512, but the structure of this message is identical
   to the message sent during standard DHE ciphersuites.
   Critically, the signed portion of the server's message fails
   to include any indication of the specific ciphersuite that
   the server has chosen."

(This is the TLS protocol problem associated with the Logjam attack.)

There are some other vulnerabilities mentioned on the web
site that can have individual CVE IDs for each affected codebase, if
any researcher (or a vendor) identifies a specific available codebase
(i.e., not one organization's in-house code). Also, there are security
issues mentioned on the web site that can have individual
CVE IDs for each affected codebase, if the author of the code requires
a CVE ID for announcing the issue to customers. Finally, there are
other issues mentioned on the web site that should not have
CVE IDs, but for which it is possible that someone is considering
using CVE IDs. Here are some examples of this distinction.

section 3.5 - "some servers in our scans used Java's DSA primes as p,
but mistakenly used the DSA group order q in the place of the
generator g ... This substitution of q for g is likely due to a
usability problem: the canonical ASN.1 representation of
Diffie-Hellman key exchange parameters (coming from PKCS#3) is a
sequence (p, g), while that of DSA parameters (coming from PKIX) is
(p, q, g); we conjecture that the confusion between these formats led
to a simple programming error."

[ So, for example, if someone identifies a specific open-source
product that has this programming error, a CVE ID can be assigned,
even if the vendor's perspective is unknown. ]

section 3.2 footnote - "Safari allowed groups as small as 16 bits"

[ It seems that there's a high probability that this was unintentional
behavior, and thus a CVE ID from Apple may be forthcoming. ]

section 3 - "for both normal and export-grade Diffie-Hellman, the vast
majority of servers use a handful of common groups"

[ This is a type of issue that typically does not have a CVE ID
because it is associated with the concept of third-party configuration
data. Although we don't currently have complete documentation on what
"third-party configuration data" means within CVE, the important
points in this situation are:

1. Use of a common group obtained from a third party was not a
choice that would have been anticipated to be unreasonable.

2. Avoiding use of a common group is not really equivalent to
correcting a software mistake; it could typically involve improving a
software product by adding new functionality or documentation, such as
adding a call to "openssl dhparam" at installation time.

3. Existence of a common group across different customers' deployments
of a product is not independently exploitable; there is no attack that
depends exclusively on knowing the group used by a victim.

For example, it seems likely and appropriate that multiple vendors
from the Common Server Products list,
and a large number of other vendors, will adjust their own
documentation (or installation process) to incorporate the general
concept of "generate a new, unique Diffie-Hellman group." However, we
don't feel that there should be CVE IDs to, in effect, track each
vendor's progress toward this, or to criticize a vendor's choices
(e.g., putting it only in documentation, with no new installation
functionality). Instead, it can probably be treated as another
important security improvement that becomes available to persons who
pick up newer versions. ]

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through ]
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)


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.