[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55A4C7E1.8000205@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:27:13 +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
Any assignment / info on these?
Amos
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 outdated (0.9.8l and older) OpenSSL libraries.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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=klt3
-----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.
