oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: Re: CVE Request -- Corosync (2.0 <= X < 2.3): Remote DoS due improper HMAC initialization


From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:47:36 -0700

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

On 02/01/2013 09:37 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
On 02/01/2013 05:26 PM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
Hello Kurt, Steve, vendors,

Corosync upstream has recently released 2.0.3 version correcting 
one security issue:

No, this version is not correct.

corosync >= 2.0 to < 2.3 are affected.

corosync 2.3 and higher have the fix.

Also, the DoS reason is not correct. The junk filter part is a 
consequence on how libnss work and should be dropped.

Subject should be:

"CVE Request -- Corosync (2.0 <= X < 2.3): Remote DoS due improper
HMAC initialization"


A denial of service flaw was found in the way Corosync, the
cluster engine and application programming interfaces, performed
processing of certain network packets, when different encryption
keys were used. Previously the HMAC key was not initialized 
properly, which allowed certain packets to pass through to the
internal phases of the Corosync packet validation process,
possibly leading to corosync daemon crash.

I explained this in details and this description is not accurate.

"A remote denial of service flaw was found in the way Corosync,
the cluster engine and application programming interfaces,
performed processing of network packets. Previously the HMAC key
was not initialized properly, which allowed random targeted packets
to be processed by the internal process of corosync and possibly
leading to a daemon crash".

Please use CVE-2013-0250  for this issue.


The HMAC initialization has been corrected in upstream via: [5]
https://github.com/corosync/corosync/commit/b3f456a8ceefac6e9f2e9acc2ea0c159d412b595



but there might be more changes needed (Cc-in Fabio and Jan).

2 missing:

https://github.com/corosync/corosync/commit/55dc09ea237482f827333759fd45608bc9518d64


https://github.com/corosync/corosync/commit/ebb007a16c6a8d9e6f783ed82b324cb232c64be5

Thanks for the additional info.

Thanks Fabio



- -- 
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 v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRDBvYAAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTtpEP/j4utU/gLEpFy5geRV07sgG5
WpLX+i36ewQ4iUbDYNg7cZlaxn51zrC62G9bAz6Rdg8I55qH33d+xMVFi6UtFypB
O/OBq7JMhRZzPW28oHnr5n9IBwNHp2AEkdgm8gdOncSyB8GYWpp+b4SZ0LcbuP7f
Si5/BFzPqH0b22VgNKvs6iLC/aNArZPaXZXzrMGsBGYEGQJ9ydVzpQLvoHgMq4B4
pvLXsGwP3Eg27g+8901MxfP2E+hMP8K70CpIMpGEHAF/aKaupPrJ5OhTcc+ct9bs
Sj8DxFImOT1EOWCEH2Gyu0q/IwqX4/UPsdyq5O7oMxP0dn4VC6rh9INxkt2ZNfx3
qMTp7efIQt3c6CDMUDGuRvGaI29nxPeWOKC+0IphPGoTW+Q+6T98NmGR/aeorObd
8wLshQavIYdlJsxm8oi8F3uDehSwvZaswR3JGJwSLZCF28sNXzkoPHavjkGg6n6R
fxd0sCuYbx0dhU7IROX/1OL7Y0UG3I+PWbmqT60GfqSbfksXU9LsSbKiEeactYhU
m/ihUVMFiecYQUrRiFo/NxWWNfR/W/Xx8RWZAruogmCl71C7bso8Pl0TEUVItKT8
8wg7YrZ+D5v/96sKNU754bEBX/vsMwmnFi17mdDxzo8aVzfW2ZiXhcrhIB7NGD/n
aIfO27EEAQDcbbEq06vJ
=o2zL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Current thread: