Re: CVE Request -- EncFS / fuse-encfs [three ids] -- Multiple Vulnerabilities in EncFS

[Josh Bressers <bressers () redhat com>]

Here goes:

CVE-2010-3073 encfs Only 32 bit of file IV used
CVE-2010-3074 encfs Watermarking attack
CVE-2010-3075 encfs Last block with single byte is insecure"

Thanks

-- 
    JB


----- "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov () redhat com> wrote:

> Hello Steve, vendors,
>
>    Micha Riser reported:
>    [A]
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/0316.html
>
> three security flaws in EncFS encrypted filesystem (more from [A]):
>
> "A security analysis of EncFS has revealed multiple vulnerabilities:
> (1) Only 32 bit of file IV used
> (2) Watermarking attack
> (3) Last block with single byte is insecure"
>
> References:
>    [B] http://www.arg0.net/encfs
>    [C] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335938
>    [D]
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/att-0316/watermark-attack-encfs.tar.gz
>    [E] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630460
>
>
> Solutions / patches information:
> ================================
>
> * for issue (1) -- seems it wasn't fixed / isn't possible to
>    fix without breaking backward compatibility. More from [B]:
>
>    "The old IV setup is kept for backwards compatibility."
>
> * for issue (2) -- EncFS upstream has released a fix for the issue:
>    [F] http://code.google.com/p/encfs/source/detail?r=59
>
> Valient, could you please confirm, the above referenced [F] patch,
> is the correct one to address the watermarking attack issue?
>
> * for issue (3) -- not sure about patch status (included in [F] too?)
>
> Steve, could you allocate CVE ids for these flaws?
>
> Thanks && Regards, Jan.
> --
> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team