[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559DEF23.5000308@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:48:51 +1200
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@...enet.co.nz>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Squid HTTP proxy CVE request
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CC'ing cve-assign since there has been no reply for several days.
On 6/07/2015 11:26 p.m., Amos Jeffries wrote:
> 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 outdated (0.9.8l and older) OpenSSL libraries.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)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=PHCB
-----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.
