[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:24:09 -0700
From: Elio Maldonado <emaldona@...hat.com>
To: Robert Relyea <rrelyea@...hat.com>
CC: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>,
Reed Loden <reed@...dloden.com>,
"Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE Request -- nss: Did honour /pkcs11.txt and /secmod.db files
by initialization
On 10/24/2011 10:01 AM, Robert Relyea wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 03:42 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
>> Cc-ing Reed on this post yet, so he could clarify
>> if Mozilla (Security) Team has already assigned a CVE identifier
>> for this one or not.
>>
>> Reed?
>>
>> Thanks&& Regards, Jan.
> It's likely the Mozilla security team hasn't assigned a CVE. The issue
> only affects applications initializing NSS with NSS_NoDB_Init(). Usually
> the application specifies the actual path to these files. In particular
> Mozilla apps always specify (though some corner cases it may fall back
> to NSS_NoDB_Init(). I think that's rare at this point because
> NSS_NoDB_Init() does not provide any trust information, which all
> Mozilla apps need.).
>
> In general NSS applications on Linux should be initializing with
> /etc/pki/nssdb.
>
> bob
>
> NOTE: the patch is in FIPS related code. Elio, please get a 6.2 Bug
> created for this ASAP. The patch is already upstream. Component is
> nss-softokn.
Done, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748524 and set various
flags.
Will start back-porting the patch to our 3.12.9 softoken right away.
Elio
>
> bob
>> --
>> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
>>
>> On 10/24/2011 12:30 PM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
>>> Hello Josh, Steve, vendors,
>>>
>>> a security flaw was found in the way nss, the Network Security
>>> Services (NSS) set of libraries, performed their initialization (the
>>> file path for "pkcs11.txt" configuration file was constructed
>>> incorrectly). When that configuration file was loaded from remote WebDAV
>>> or Samba CIFS share, it could lead to arbitrary security module
>>> load, potentially leading to execution of arbitrary code (execution of
>>> code from untrusted security module).
>>>
>>> Upstream bug report:
>>> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641052
>>>
>>> Other references:
>>> [2] https://secunia.com/advisories/46557/
>>> [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388045
>>> [4] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=97426#c8
>>> [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748379
>>>
>>> Could you allocate a CVE id for this? (as it looks there isn't one
>>> for this deficiency yet)
>>>
>>> Thank you&& Regards, Jan.
>>> --
>>> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
>
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.
