[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAESArwn24tDQ1kD_Tfb65zCSUTr_Nz8AYwy0a_vKP8V4be5utw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:47:55 -0700
From: Reed Black <reed@...afeword.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Squid HTTP proxy CVE request
As I read this, issue #1 allows CONNECT requests to proceed that shouldn't
otherwise. Is unsetting AllowTcpForwarding also sufficient for the "Determining
if your version is vulnerable" section?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@...enet.co.nz> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Greetings,
>
> This months release of Squid HTTP proxy, version 3.5.6, contains fixes
> for two security issues.
>
>
> Issue #1:
>
> Due to incorrect handling of peer responses in a hierarchy of 2 or
> more proxies remote clients (or scripts run on a client) are able to
> gain unrestricted access through a gateway proxy to its backend proxy.
>
> If the two proxies have differing levels of security this could lead
> to authentication bypass or unprivileged access to supposedly secure
> resources.
>
> <http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.5/changesets/squid-3.5-13856.p
> atch>
>
> All Squid up to and including 3.5.5 are vulnerable.
>
> (when published the advisory for this will be
> <http://www.squid-cache.org/Advisories/SQUID-2015_2.txt>)
>
>
> Issue #2:
>
> This is somewhat more obscure, and I am seeking clarification perhapse
> more than assignment.
>
> Squid up to and including 3.5.5 are apparently vulnerable to DoS
> attack from malicious clients using repeated TLS renegotiation
> messages. This has not been verified as it also seems to require
> outdated (0.9.8l and older) OpenSSL libraries.
>
> <http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.5/changesets/squid-3.5-13849.p
> atch>
>
> CVE-2009-3555 was mentioned by the submitter, but that was clearly
> assigned for server-initiated renegotiation. This Squid change is
> specifically for the client-initiated renegotiation part of the TLS
> protocol flaw.
>
> There may be some relevant CVE already assigned, although I've been
> unable to find it. Only CVE-2011-1473 which is for the library itself
> and disputed.
>
> So, is server software being assigned specific CVE (or a shared
> generic one) for resolving this flaw? Please indicate which CVE Squid
> announcements should mention (if any).
>
>
> Thanks,
> Amos Jeffries
> Squid Software Foundation
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVmmXyAAoJEGvSOzfXE+nLLjMP/2qTXQODFIdE9zfL3ZQ8MRhZ
> Edh4PNFxSkhvVyYn8kU6ZMg2jx7hiXXEfiP/Ilvo3XcY/eDWf64g+POgLX20X5jV
> o/StXDKHvcZUargImliJb2W1nalIGw1iqBERs6qwfRJhK67MHPgGWwxHu/SFEWsM
> Kk2GRlGlIM4H8g7FnsDvwAnAYweGm3+iSqZlQEaX5JOqem2M8qukGziQsc28yU4E
> SU5YIwNltW563pQYD+UTerz5i24Dt086in1AvSEFiLfqAMq4o3AdcFK73RhBdKyY
> yJJ0rKaz3o18vtru3I7soms8dmUI0mLxX6imPrBHOeSInjGbbRvPIU3g2WYpcdwF
> o6/7Xbg8HB+9QORXINqzC02aBiIJf8blleBnUKJQt1JMhQkb8vXAW4wcHoKfKTPo
> w9gyhwHgbBCYk0gSQ5CuIlaqPUEPAST0DiV0OIDHltjeLSq7vsq5zij9OKLxQdDJ
> nemVr03jrPHELCvV6eKXT/UJj6X+vfpCJk+giQq6rXC8ikhTvpID1aU/xOGxNJGq
> ig9ThwADl6RE2/cgjh7bnz1IPcG679V85uMbwPVTXU38XmhTyWQKjDdt5DuAdd6a
> RUsheekgzf5Lhhcv7/wht/ecNxDbBKvW8o8fvMinn5j9c0GNSNXtGbp8QYlySFS9
> ycdNaJLFdIm8LnV5rNSW
> =COJ4
> -----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.
