Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:03:09 -0500 (EST)
From: cve-assign@...re.org
To: mmcallis@...hat.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: "imapsync ignores the --tls switch and sends my authentication plaintext."

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

> https://github.com/imapsync/imapsync/issues/15

There seems to be a possibility of at least two separate issues.
First, the product ends up trying a cleartext login even though
the --tls option is provided on the command line. This is assigned
CVE-2014-2014. (Moving to a cleartext session in reaction to a
certificate-verification failure would typically always be wrong for
any product.)

Second, the product is trying a cleartext login even though the server
sent LOGINDISABLED. RFC 3501 section 6.2.3 says "A client
implementation MUST NOT send a LOGIN command if the LOGINDISABLED
capability is advertised."

(The discussion also reported a third problem: "The user is never
notified of the certificate issue." That one is most likely, by
itself, outside the scope of CVE. If a product refused to operate in
an unsafe certificate situation, and did not tell the user why it was
refusing, that would potentially be a usability problem. That would
not be an independent vulnerability that could have a CVE ID.)

The patch in:

  https://github.com/imapsync/imapsync/commit/7d2043f95f42122c2ae3340053f893095efe1550

seems to change:

   $imap->starttls(  ) if ( $imap->Tls(  ) ) ;

to:

   if ( $imap->Tls(  ) ) {
          $imap->starttls(  )
          or die_clean("Can not go to tls encryption on [$host]:", $imap->LastError, "\n" ) ;
   }

in two places.

The second issue (proceeding when LOGINDISABLED is advertised) would
also be relevant if it occurred when the client did not include --tls
on the command line. If anyone has observed that, a second CVE ID
could be assigned. This is a protocol violation with security
implications. Compliant client software is supposed to look for
LOGINDISABLED in all cases, presumably including cases in which the
end user is not explicitly requesting a TLS session.

Finally, https://github.com/imapsync/imapsync/issues/15 ends with

   there's still something weird, since I found that:
   
   --ssl1 --tls2 fails on host2 login with "Unable to start TLS: Cannot determine peer hostname for verification"
   --tls1 --tls2 succeeds
   --tls2 succeeds
   --tls1 --ssl2 succeeds

We couldn't immediately determine if that's simply a functionality
problem, or whether another vulnerability exists (e.g., if the correct
behavior were "fails" in all four cases, but with some combinations of
command-line options, there's no attempt to check a server hostname).

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTA2caAAoJEKllVAevmvmsjh0IAIfLB/+evn3Cb3/MXfe3h+W2
K2IUwXZACCqEx2jXOKzc3bG2ns3YlVzkvtxtmzZ0Vg6KAPb/SKEki4szcwu+hPbI
KCKRBGJR6Q/+42VGyks+56WtRoG7YhaAA7lhldULpzsXBaSvqe3pcuC1MGx2J1LL
Zia+++79c7JySlgXtMGc90/X2lKKYGdTgfKgWH3cmKTw0duNkA96i3QIeLm9ArUL
yYSEBsz5PFxeDBozFijIQUkf9cyjbHF9X5TIJkzL9UJ6U76qwMAUZelrAgFfHqVe
zoXMKCZKHzf5R1bhEjJU2V2cofp58JKX3rsKlVgupkBLIvaRU4beIAf1eGlESFw=
=aR5P
-----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.