gnutls package may be vulnerable to CVE-2021-20232

gnutls package may be vulnerable to CVE-2021-20232

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

CVE-2021-20232	12.03.21 20:15
A flaw was found in gnutls. A use after free issue in
client_send_params in lib/ext/pre_shared_key.c may lead to memory
corruption and other potential consequences.

It is not certain whether 3.6.x series are affected as packaged in GNU
Guix. I asked the upstream at <
https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/-/issues/1151#note_528567535>. Let's
wait for an answer, or then apply/backport this commit (
https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/-/commit/75a937d97f4fefc6f9b08e3791f151445f551cb3
) to 3.6.x series.

A rather low impact vulnerability upstream says, but I would be careful
there as an experienced exploit writer could find reliable ways to
exploit it in my opinion.

Let's patch this as soon as possible!

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: gnutls package may be vulnerable to CVE-2021-20232

[Mark H Weaver]

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:

> CVE-2021-20232	12.03.21 20:15
> A flaw was found in gnutls. A use after free issue in
> client_send_params in lib/ext/pre_shared_key.c may lead to memory
> corruption and other potential consequences.

I pushed fixes for this and CVE-2021-20231 to 'master' in commit
74e2c0e00f58c8bf948f7dc7c5ae2876af910d5a.

For what it's worth, I think that <bug-guix@gnu.org> would be a more
appropriate place to send these bug reports.  What do you think?

     Thanks,
       Mark

Re: gnutls package may be vulnerable to CVE-2021-20232

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

On Sat, 2021-03-13 at 05:12 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I pushed fixes for this and CVE-2021-20231 to 'master' in commit
> 74e2c0e00f58c8bf948f7dc7c5ae2876af910d5a.

Thank you, I would otherwise have done it, I was waiting for an answer
from upstream first, or some time.

> For what it's worth, I think that <bug-guix@gnu.org> would be a more
> appropriate place to send these bug reports.  What do you think?

I don't know, it seems people read guix-devel more maybe? I don't know
if they are bug reports, most of the time I am handling these issues
myself, I just try to keep a public log so I don't forget things and
can come back later, and if I disappear, other people can still have a
go at them.

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: gnutls package may be vulnerable to CVE-2021-20232

[zimoun]

Hi Léo,

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 11:50, Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-03-13 at 05:12 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:

>> For what it's worth, I think that <bug-guix@gnu.org> would be a more
>> appropriate place to send these bug reports.  What do you think?
>
> I don't know, it seems people read guix-devel more maybe? I don't know
> if they are bug reports, most of the time I am handling these issues
> myself, I just try to keep a public log so I don't forget things and
> can come back later, and if I disappear, other people can still have a
> go at them.

I also think it is better to fill a bug report for these security issues
instead of guix-devel.  One reason is debbugs allows severity tags,
which can be helpful to filter.  Another reason is «if you disappear»,
people will not dig into guix-devel to read this “public log” but would
probably address the items in the bug tracker.

I speak for myself, when I read guix-devel or any other Guix list, I
have an org-capture and capturing security issue is not in my list (I
have enough on my plate :-)).  Time to time, I open “M-x debbugs-gnu“
and select bugs: check the status and try to close them; and months
later from now I will never search in guix-devel to check
vulnerabilities of some packages.  And even if I would do, the search
query, assuming a pattern in the messages, would return both closed and
still open security issues, so I would have to read first some messages,
even the closed ones, just to find the still open ones; the length of
the search results becoming larger and larger.


BTW, thanks for all this effort! :-)

Cheers,
simon