[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:52:12 -0500
From: Raphael Geissert <geissert@...ian.org>
To: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request - mcrypt buffer overflow flaw
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 14:20:20 Kurt Seifried wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 12:42 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Kurt,
> >
> > I think at least one more CVE id needs to be assigned:
> >
> > On Saturday 15 September 2012 19:22:06 Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 11 September 2012 10:19:38 Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
> >>
> >> Another week, another couple of patches. One makes it use strncpy
> >> and forces a NUL on the last byte of local_algorithm, local_mode,
> >> and local_keymode. Their values are checked later on, so it seems
> >> safe to pass unvalidated data. The size of the buffers is
> >> hard-coded to avoid making many changes to the code.
> >
> > I think this needs a separate id, since fixes were released by
> > Fedora and Debian referencing CVE-2012-4409 but only for the
> > original report.
> >
> > Eygene's followup issues have been fixed in Debian without
> > referencing a CVE id.
>
> Can you post a link to source fixes/commits? Thanks.
This is all there is:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/09/16/1
The Debian changelog is probably not of much use.
> >> Once those issues were fixed I noticed that salt_size is not
> >> initialized if the salt flag is not set. The result is an
> >> inconditional call to malloc, with an uninitialized int as
> >> argument. This can lead to a non-attacker-controlled memory
> >> consumption DoS in most cases. It makes me think nobody actually
> >> ever used it without a salt.
> >
> > I've no strong opinion on whether this deserves an id.
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> Hrmm there's a thought, has this DoS been confirmed? As we've probably
> seen over the last year more than a few sites fail to salt their
> stored passwords =(.
I don't see how that is relevant, this is the mcrypt(1) tool in concern.
libmcrypt and libmhash are not affected.
The attached file is a PoC built with a slightly modified mcrypt. It appears
that there is no way to disable the salt bit in the unmodified mcrypt while
still producing a file that can later be opened. (for those looking at the
code, the salt bit is only disabled when using --bare)
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Download attachment "foo.nc" of type "application/x-netcdf" (76 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.
