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 14:30:56 +0000
From: Jason Buberel <jbuberel@...gle.com>
To: Martin Prpic <mprpic@...hat.com>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request - Go net/http library - HTTP smuggling

Martin,

We agree that that issue should be included in a 1.4.3 release under a 4th
CVE ID. In addition, we would also like to include:

https://go-review.googlesource.com/#/c/12865/

Which addresses the very closely related issue:

https://golang.org/issue/11930

...under the same (4th, not yet assigned) CVE ID.

-jason

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:55 AM Martin Prpic <mprpic@...hat.com> wrote:

> Hi, this looks like it needs a CVE as well:
>
>
> https://github.com/golang/go/commit/26049f6f9171d1190f3bbe05ec304845cfe6399f
> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/12027
>
> Can you please assign one? Thank you!
>
> --
> Martin Prpič / Red Hat Product Security
>
>
> cve-assign@...re.org writes:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> >>
> https://github.com/golang/go/commit/117ddcb83d7f42d6aa72241240af99ded81118e9
> >>
> >> * 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.
> >
> >
> >>
> https://github.com/golang/go/commit/300d9a21583e7cf0149a778a0611e76ff7c6680f
> >>
> >> * 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 http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 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
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

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