Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:55:39 +0200
From: Martin Prpic <>
Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request - Go net/http library - HTTP smuggling

Hi, this looks like it needs a CVE as well:

Can you please assign one? Thank you!

Martin Prpič / Red Hat Product Security writes:

> Hash: SHA256
>> * Invalid headers are parsed as valid headers (like "Content Length:" with a
>> space in the middle)
> For purposes of CVE assignments, we feel that this needs to be
> categorized separately from the other parts of the report. The primary
> factor is that there are different sets of affected versions. This
> behavior apparently was not present in all versions of Go: it was
> added in February 2012. Also, it is not really an error in determining
> the semantics of a set of headers; it's a security-relevant error in
> interpretation of the syntax of an individual header.
> Use CVE-2015-5739.
>> * Double Content-length headers in a request does not generate a 400 error,
>> the second Content-length is ignored
> Use CVE-2015-5740 for the reporter's finding of a security-relevant
> RFC 7230 3.3.3 4 violation ("MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request)
> status code").
> 300d9a21583e7cf0149a778a0611e76ff7c6680f also has code changes that
> were not mentioned in your "as provided by the reporter" section. Our
> interpretation is that there were separate internal discoveries of
> other security-relevant RFC 7230 violations, such as "MUST NOT send a
> Content-Length header field in any message that contains a
> Transfer-Encoding header field." Use CVE-2015-5741 for one or more
> internal discoveries reflected in
> 300d9a21583e7cf0149a778a0611e76ff7c6680f.
> Finally, if there is a code change in
> 300d9a21583e7cf0149a778a0611e76ff7c6680f that is exclusively for the
> purposes of hardening (i.e., no RFC requires the change as a smuggling
> security fix, and the code change is not for addressing an
> individually exploitable problem), then that code change is outside
> the scope of CVE.
> - -- 
> CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
> M/S M300
> 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
> [ PGP key available through ]
> Version: GnuPG v1
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVwjr0AAoJEKllVAevmvms4SgH/1K26OmJwLV0/D+IgSIcWq8q
> ecN2DlngcNpU7W/fq9o/brN4hoMGVzh/aEPU3JIqC0JbY0OhidPe/DZmqLcndnwb
> iQ4wS4r89akrzZpdOYc09oBlqyxKtto1exwFHWqqdVIbBjHdq+nQhEBwYGyjf/XK
> 0DyEX6f72Msa//HFhNKycOKM4KPKsi1Gh5Dl+L9nddWnPdTnTSHoIdD+RGmXDDkD
> 8i6WI/e5QVrGL2g24mrpefDUWX/p9T/cx9LR1hiiUUDuvns40NVz11E1i8PD2fv3
> wRzEjUqyt94syYh9PNa0+ZFH7sPUyYOhnpi3/1UzRkSUSI++FfpDFrq3rOEZ4Jk=
> =rNSr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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

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