Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 13:08:58 +0000
From: John Haxby <>
Subject: Re: Another Python app (rhn-setup: rhnreg_ks) not
 checking hostnames in certs properly CVE-2015-1777

Hash: SHA256

On 06/03/15 01:02, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> Please contact your TAM/GSS with this request, it carries a lot
> more impact if customers want something that we also want.

I know "me too" isn't helpful, but I'm going to say "me too" anyway.

> On 05/03/15 04:09 PM, Michael Samuel wrote:
>> Could RedHat ship a new package that replaced python's default
>> SSL library with the one that validates TLS by default and
>> release a RHEA?
>> That way customers (like me) who never want broken TLS on their 
>> network can just install a package and it's fixed.

It occurred to me that we could have a patch that has a global switch
(eg a file in, say, /etc/sysconfig and a corresponding switch for
individual applications) that switches on the correct behaviour.   I
know it's a bit of a mess, but that way people who don't care will
continue in blissful ignorance and people that do care can do
something about it.


>> Regards, Michael
>> On 6 March 2015 at 05:36, Kurt Seifried <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/03/15 10:06 AM, John Haxby wrote:
>>>> PEP 476 cites 11 CVEs that resulted from python not properly
>>>> validating certificates.   This would be number 12.
>>>> Shouldn't python versions prior to 2.7.9 and 3.4.3 have a CVE
>>>> each for the lack of verification? If internal corporate
>>>> software stops working because of invalid certificates,
>>>> wasn't it broken anyway?
>>> So if something is advertised as having a security feature and
>>> does not or it is broken then it gets a CVE. In this case
>>> Python, and basically every other SSL/TLS implementation on the
>>> planet, by default, did not check hostnames in certs, but they
>>> did provide that capability should you choose to use it. So no
>>> CVE since it wasn't "meant to be secure" as I understand it.
>>> Now for my personal opinion: Doing SSL/TLS with server certs
>>> and not checking the hostname in a server cert is completely
>>> insane and utterly defeats the purpose. However there are cases
>>> where a certificate may not have a hostname field, or need a
>>> valid hostname field, e.g. a client certificate where you
>>> mostly care about the fact that the client has it at all. So I
>>> can see why they made hostname checks optional, but again, I
>>> think it was a very bad decision long term as evidenced by:
>>> -- Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud PGP
>>> A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

Version: GnuPG v1


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.