Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:02:53 +0200 From: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@...e.de>, Andreas Jaeger <aj@...e.de> Subject: Re: CVE request: crypt_blowfish 8-bit character mishandling Solar Designer wrote: >On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: >> I wonder whether it would make sense to patch pam_unix (resp >> pam_unix2 in our case) to detect the problem and activate the >> workaround automatically. pam_unix has the clear text password so >> knows when it contains 8bit characters. It also has the shadow entry >> which tells when the password was set. If that date is before the >> update was installed the 2x method could be tried if 2a failed and a >> warning could be logged to syslog. > >This is tricky. When implementing things like that, we need to consider >timing leaks (do we care if an observer of ssh traffic is able to >tell whether the password contained 8-bit chars or not? perhaps we do) >and leaks via the hash encodings themselves (if only some are changed to >a certain type, this may leak some info about the corresponding >passwords, thereby speeding up offline attacks on the hashes). For SUSE Linux we're not that paranoid I guess :-) The extra time would only hit accounts that are not converted yet. I suppose there are not too many anyways and there will be less over time. >My response above is generic, not focused on your specific proposed >approach. Overall, I think we'll need to give this more thought. > >One idea is to allocate yet another prefix, which will mean the same >thing as 2a, but "certified" as passing a certain specific test suite >(which will include 8-bit chars). So we'll have: > >2a - unknown correctness (may be correct, may be buggy) >2x - sign extension bug >2y - definitely correct > >Newly set/changed passwords will be getting the new prefix. > >Then we'll be able to do things such as optionally have a PAM module >deny logins with 8-bit char passwords to accounts that have 2a or/and >2x hashes. (Rationale for the admin: passwords weaker than expected.) >With another option, we'll be able to have 2a treated as 2x. (Rationale >for the admin: minimum inconvenience to the users.) Perhaps there can >be other reasonable settings as well. > >What do you think? I'm not sure we can expect admins to put that much thought into the issue and expect them to configure things. I think for the system logins we can get away with patching pam_unix2 to have a fallback to 2x and log a message for the admin that tells him to run "passwd -e" on the account. Theoretically it could even issue a PAM_TEXT_INFO message to the user. That might confuse some applications though. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
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.