Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:33:10 +0200
From: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
CC: oss-security <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Valient Gough <vgough@...ox.com>, Micha Riser <micha@...world.org>
Subject: CVE Request -- EncFS / fuse-encfs [three ids] -- Multiple Vulnerabilities
 in EncFS

Hello Steve, vendors,

   Micha Riser reported:
   [A] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/0316.html

three security flaws in EncFS encrypted filesystem (more from [A]):

"A security analysis of EncFS has revealed multiple vulnerabilities:
(1) Only 32 bit of file IV used
(2) Watermarking attack
(3) Last block with single byte is insecure"

References:
   [B] http://www.arg0.net/encfs
   [C] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335938
   [D] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/att-0316/watermark-attack-encfs.tar.gz
   [E] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630460


Solutions / patches information:
================================

* for issue (1) -- seems it wasn't fixed / isn't possible to
   fix without breaking backward compatibility. More from [B]:

   "The old IV setup is kept for backwards compatibility."

* for issue (2) -- EncFS upstream has released a fix for the issue:
   [F] http://code.google.com/p/encfs/source/detail?r=59

Valient, could you please confirm, the above referenced [F] patch,
is the correct one to address the watermarking attack issue?

* for issue (3) -- not sure about patch status (included in [F] too?)

Steve, could you allocate CVE ids for these flaws?

Thanks && Regards, Jan.
--
Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ