oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE Request -- Revelation: 1) Limits effective password length to 32 characters 2) Doesn't iterate the passphrase through SHA algorithm to derive the encryption key


From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:10:51 -0600

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

On 06/18/2012 07:32 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
Hello Kurt, Steve, vendors,

multiple security flaws have been found in Revelation, a password 
manager for GNOME 2. Specifically:

1) It was found that Revelation limited effective password lengths
to thirty two characters, which made it easier for
context-dependent attackers to successfully conduct brute-force 
password guessing attacks,

Please use CVE-2012-2742 for this issue

2) It was found that Revelation did not iterate the particular 
passphrase through some of the SHA family of hashing algorithms, in
order to derive the encryption key, which made it easier (in that
scenario there were only 7 bits to vary on each character) for
context-dependent attackers to successfully conduct dictionary
based password guessing attacks.

Please use CVE-2012-2743 for this issue.

Assigned 2012 CVE's as the first clear mention of the issues is in the
 codepoet.no ticket. The Blog entry for 2010 mentions the issue
indirectly so I'm going with the more concrete mention.

Upstream ticket: [1] 
http://oss.codepoet.no/revelation/issue/61/file-format-magic-string-version-mismatch



Further references: [2]
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421571 [3]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/168607.html


[4]
http://knoxin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/revelation-password-manager-considered.html

 [5] 
http://westhoffswelt.de/blog/0046_from_revelation_security_to_android_password_managers.html



Could you allocate two CVE ids for these? (I think two are needed
for each of the issues)

Thank you && Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat
Security Response Team

P.S.: Kurt - regarding time, when this issue has been reported for
the first time (thus which CVE-201*- id to allocate), it is
necessary to find this it out yet.

Upstream ticket [1] was reported on 2012-02-06 (which would suggest
CVE-2012-* one to be allocated), but the rest of the links mention
this issue has been known for longer time, thus please investigate
yet. I wanted to Cc- the original ticket reporter 'hannibal218bc'
on this request (he to clarify), but I doesn't seem to be able to
find his proper email address / contact. Sorry for that.




- -- 
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP32EbAAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTdt0QAJwROwaJ361H4Y3UxgZzvid4
8PirpwQ0q2ptoPOnZyLXeVAuymXUG7iw7/eOuFvuoKvexOgi1HUHVYiDm9ccuKns
lGTZtQD2agzOvOzLARu03+G6MThb9M/sMDLq+5jaNZqAVTbLQGHDXFkKOotu5X6e
/1UEaXRGPGzOFhjdIzSWDmXmBhXzHzfL8ooghsAN4tWZOOFcrapj+KtAcNkZsezN
PqfgLJPwaatOSZlz/1kIvVQO9DRuJ5grnxTV9qYoyjgP+AmFJVmZ9WiS/1RcE2ZU
iHg2dsD1s47fzaMUfL7K8CaCXKOVRSWHhspmHa3yVUOXemuvVlPlVNV9VpuSBw6m
Q6VFt3u8G8V/B3Dw/0OpYo7+Jh+YgmffEBInCAISIcu+9fKbKDpnfGaTqaotuWV5
c5290ASZkSqJEBAQI/PNw+G14am803SxyNyDQ446bqwlxktQEmija3+MdRSkVqH8
xiRzkkPWdYQMQOw0NWEE8xBR/p0PTPG+cMFe6QpfFqLCOFuAXTnx1HiL7+p1adqO
BGUJm+58GnZ2vG+yKbUAHCRfQOFy4NGnDdW9/fBueNDLIUvO4EaTALfhu2oblfzz
Dzh8tL4jw71XXAy3Ytf/KJrjPbUCDf2xgfogZeeRQuNzts9CMJVFYsI/5Ye2/ME3
UchPcZ4iZqFKsM7/SOdL
=bAR/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Current thread: