[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:51:50 +0200
From: Adam Maris <amaris@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE for crypto_get_random() from libsrtp
Hello,
The weakest method it provides uses no encryption at all, just HMAC-SHA1
with 80 bit authentication tag:
http://srtp.sourcearchive.com/documentation/1.4.2.dfsg/group__SRTP_g94d0056e812802ac2920aa474bc5b59b.html
Unless CVE is assigned, we don't plan to ship any patch at the moment.
Regards,
On 01/08/15 11:31, Michael Samuel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't see any reference to it using 80 bits of random data - it looks
> like it's AES-CTR mode. Do you have further information on that?
>
> That being said, I can see quite a few ways it can go wrong - it's doesn't
> appear thread-safe for a start. Is it worth taking a closer look or are
> you planning on shipping the patch anyway?
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On 31 July 2015 at 22:47, Adam Maris <amaris@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've got question whether this bug (
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793971) is CVE-worthy?
>> Could it be classified as CWE-330: Use of Insufficiently Random Values?
>>
>> According to the SRTP documentation (
>> http://srtp.sourcearchive.com/documentation/1.4.2.dfsg/group__SRTP_g1d4c228c6a58096dfab3cefbabd66f17.html),
>> it provides 80 bits of random data, which is quite a borderline.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Adam Maris / Red Hat Product Security
>>
>>
--
Adam Maris / Red Hat Product Security
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.
