Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:47:18 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...ment7.net>
CC: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>,
        "dammer2k@...il.com Sharipov" <dammer2k@...il.com>,
        "security@...y-lang.org" <security@...y-lang.org>
Subject: Re: CVE-2013-4287 Algorithmic complexity vulnerability
 in RubyGems 2.0.7 and older

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/17/2013 06:11 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2013, at 18:28, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
> wrote:
>> On 09/14/2013 03:11 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-10 09:32, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>>> The vulnerability can be fixed by changing the first grouping
>>>> to an atomic grouping in Gem::Version::VERSION_PATTERN in 
>>>> lib/rubygems/version.rb.  For RubyGems 2.0.x:
>>>> 
>>>> -  VERSION_PATTERN = 
>>>> '[0-9]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?'
>>>> # :nodoc: +  VERSION_PATTERN = 
>>>> '[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?'
>>>> # :nodoc:
>>>> 
>>>> For RubyGems 1.8.x:
>>>> 
>>>> -  VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*' # :nodoc: + 
>>>> VERSION_PATTERN = '[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*' # :nodoc:
>>> 
>>> This is not enough. The following script:
>>> 
>>> # Regexes are from 
>>> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/lib/rubygems/version.rb#L150
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> 
VERSION_PATTERN =
>>> '[0-9]+(?>\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?'
>>> # :nodoc: ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN = 
>>> /\A\s*(#{VERSION_PATTERN})*\s*\z/ # :nodoc: 
>>> '1111111111111111111111111111.' =~ ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN
>>> 
>>> takes ~1m on my machine. The problem is not in VERSION_PATTERN
>>> but in its possible repetition inside
>>> ANCHORED_VERSION_PATTERN.
>>> 
>> 
>> Great, I guess we're going to need a new CVE. Before I assign one
>> can we make sure we fix this so more fiddly expressions don't
>> cause problems? Thanks.
> 
> Here's a new patch to go with the new (unassigned) CVE.  This new
> patch replaces regular expression matches that are susceptible to
> backtracking with a parser-like approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This patch applies to RubyGems 2.1.x releases.  I will create
> patches for RubyGems 1.8.23.1, 1.8.26, 2.0.9 and 2.1.4 if it there
> is no obvious flaw seen in it.
> 
> I would like to release this fix by Monday, 23 September as I will
> be traveling mid-week.
> 
> The vulnerable regular expression constants are still present, but
> I can't think of a way to construct them that does not allow
> backtracking.  I think they should be removed for the security fix
> release, but a fellow maintainer is worried about backwards
> compatibility and thinks they should be removed in the next feature
> release (2.2).  What do people typically do?
> 
> Here is a script to check the patch:
> 

Ok please please use CVE-2013-4363 for this issue (incomplete fix for
CVE-2013-4287).

- -- 
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 v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=7el3
-----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.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.