Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:24:28 -0700 From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> To: KB Sriram <kbsriram@...il.com> CC: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>, wk@...pg.org Subject: Re: GnuPG 1.4.12 and lower - memory access errors and keyring database corruption -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/01/2013 12:22 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote: > On 12/28/2012 06:06 PM, KB Sriram wrote: >> Versions of GnuPG <= 1.4.12 are vulnerable to memory access >> violations and public keyring database corruption when importing >> public keys that have been manipulated. > >> An OpenPGP key can be fuzzed in such a way that gpg segfaults (or >> has other memory access violations) when importing the key. > >> The key may also be fuzzed such that gpg reports no errors when >> examining the key (eg: "gpg the_bad_key.pkr") but importing it >> causes gpg to corrupt its public keyring database. > >> The database corruption issue was first reported on Dec 6th, >> through the gpg bug tracking system: > >> https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1455 > >> The subsequent memory access violation was discovered and reported >> in a private email with the maintainer on Dec 20th. > >> A zip file with keys that causes segfaults and other errors is >> available at >> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18852638/gnupg-issues/1455.zip and includes >> a log file that demonstrates the issues [on MacOS X and gpg >> 1.4.11] > >> A new version of gpg -- 1.4.13 -- that addressed both these issues, >> was independently released by the maintainer on Dec 20th. > >> The simplest solution is to upgrade all gpg installs to 1.4.13. > >> [Workarounds: A corrupted database may be recovered by manually >> copying back the pubring.gpg~ backup file. Certain errors may also >> be prevented by never directly importing a key, but first just >> "looking" at the key (eg: "gpg bad_key.pkr"). However, this is not >> guaranteed to work in all cases; though upgrading to 1.4.13 does >> work for the issues reported.] > >> Discovery: > >> The problem was discovered during a byte-fuzzing test of OpenPGP >> certificates for an unrelated application. Each byte in turn was >> replaced by a random byte, and the modified certificate fed to the >> application to check that it handled errors correctly. Gpg was used >> as a control, but it itself turned out to have errors related to >> packet parsing. The errors are generally triggered when fuzzing the >> length field of OpenPGP packets, which cascades into subsequent >> errors in certain situations. > >> -kb > > Has this been assigned a CVE identifier yet? Spoke with upstream, confirmed things. Please use CVE-2012-6085 for this issue. - -- Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT) PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ43AsAAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTWBkP/2+7T2S3n6KOc0VQjcDlK9Yo kUauilVJcH9QKZW28JHGzQnNUV/jf8csjtGsWBawVi7ofrlNNbNLRXTBe3OqEaxM ltLB0049NjMQ4sdf9agur3t7kXFJkRarMQZ+DGnlQAYClZggEsztWhwMCOozMiay /NuJsUQvlAtzRcRYZEyI0P3R5ecfsu0JHJuf9on/bc4hXgl4A6kl02IGaaZi69hU faYdeGXRKjDKWp7fsLdWXVO4S43+QV2VKADdkxC5+fef9b1lHH6cHhobsZCb8ZCl pVx19tF/jid7Lz3QyLeaJNuKsu/H65/xJvnhUTdUr3viqo3cArudNNhkb2Fu+8u8 Y03M1w6jdMpO2ENNjgrlrlgLZ4zCk/A8enK61DJnll7oIhVGbn58K0AVSmfcPJtN V+JklmvbEwJwxlOw9MxWkJ6nuQrXaFJRB5ruQnuvLneEWHsfPYlJMUpUmtmg3VWe 4gbFn774VplIxLuo3wHDwPdaWT7piMvBZLdHvLvRyfx7yBY9zphFsW4zQvZH2hGa jMpUj2g8mR2Tw03REXrvgj+GNqMKy516d1YbVm8Y8//TCHMYt8EWeXHJ4COS/9WO rKxEBi8kpL/rc5VFOD+76S3Skp2jgYAql9BTbBp4DoJd7jtT8boRYjJFWWzpiwxi isKwpf/bS3MC+ZxHKTNe =zCWo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.