[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150522094602.GB7977@kronk.local>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:46:02 +0200
From: Alessandro Ghedini <alessandro@...dini.me>
To: cve-assign@...re.org
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request: zeromq downgrade attack
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:16:53AM -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> > // Is the peer using ZMTP/1.0 with no revision number?
> > if (greeting_recv [0] != 0xff || !(greeting_recv [9] & 0x01)) {
> > if (session->zap_enabled ()) {
> > // Reject ZMTP 1.0 connections if ZAP is enabled
> > error ();
> >
> > if (greeting_recv [revision_pos] == ZMTP_1_0) {
> > if (session->zap_enabled ()) {
> > // Reject ZMTP 1.0 connections if ZAP is enabled
> > error ();
> >
> > if (greeting_recv [revision_pos] == ZMTP_2_0) {
> > if (session->zap_enabled ()) {
> > // Reject ZMTP 1.0 connections if ZAP is enabled
> > error ();
>
> We think there is essentially only one vulnerability, and it was fixed
> by that commit, but it is somewhat confusing because of an apparent
> typo in a comment. Shouldn't the "== ZMTP_2_0" test have a "Reject
> ZMTP 2.0" comment?
Yes, I think that was due to a copy-paste error when backporting the patches.
The current git version has the correct comment [0].
Cheers
[0] https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/f03a78bbfc205e12591a256914c6d53cc57e9023/src/stream_engine.cpp#L609
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
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.
