Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:05:10 -0600
From: Austin English <austinenglish@...il.com>
To: cve-assign@...re.org, Austin English <austinenglish@...il.com>, 
	oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: CVE request for wget

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Austin English <austinenglish@...il.com> wrote:
> And 1.7 is now out as well:
> https://tails.boum.org/news/version_1.7/index.en.html
>
> With the fix included and documented
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Austin English <austinenglish@...il.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The fix has been released in 1.7-rc1,
>> https://tails.boum.org/news/test_1.7-rc1/index.en.html
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Austin English <austinenglish@...il.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@...onical.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:57:26PM -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>>> >> If there is any additional Tails vulnerability related to this,
>>> >> another CVE ID may be needed. For example,
>>> >>
>>> >>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2015-08/msg00050.html
>>> >>
>>> >> says
>>> >>
>>> >>   to be 100% sure, you should add --passive-ftp to your command line.
>>> >>   If you don't do that, your /etc/wgetrc or ~/.wgetrc could include
>>> >>   --no-passive-ftp (or passiveftp = off).
>>> >>
>>> >> If Tails is supposed to try to ensure that, perhaps there's a
>>> >> requirement to have something like:
>>> >>
>>> >>   alias wget="wget --passive-ftp"
>>> >>
>>> >> in a system-wide location (possibly /etc/bash.bashrc). The concept of
>>> >> CVE IDs for "failure of a torify step" issues is new, and we aren't
>>> >> sure of the best approach.
>>> >
>>> > I suspect using a bash alias in a site-wide config might then qualify
>>> > for
>>> > another CVE in the future, along the lines of "programs that spawn wget
>>> > via system(3), popen(3), or exec family of functions can use unsafe
>>> > active
>>> > mode by accident". If Tails is in the business of fixing these things
>>> > for safety, removing active ftp support from tools seems like better
>>> > fix.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>>
>>> A fix has been applied to Tails git:
>>>
>>> https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/repository/revisions/b9fd6312435d55dd0bc0b6abdb7994da4d66e2b2
>>>
>>> In short, the wget binary is moved to /usr/lib/wget/wget, and a
>>> wrapper script is put in place in /usr/bin/wget. The wrapper ensures
>>> that wget is called via torsocks, and additionally, also forces
>>> --passive-ftp.
>>>
>>> Moving wget to /usr/lib/wget/wget gets the potentially dangerous wget
>>> binary out of $PATH. A dedicated attacker could check if /usr/bin/wget
>>> is a script and then parse it to find the actual binary, but that
>>> would need to be a very dedicated attacker and at that point, there
>>> are more feasible attacks available.

This CVE has been fixed in a released version for quite some time,
what is needed to get this published/resolved?

-- 
-Austin

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.