cvs commit: ports/security/vuxml vuln.xml
nectar at FreeBSD.org
Wed Aug 3 12:07:16 GMT 2005
On Aug 3, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> On 2005.07.31 10:34:00 -0500, Jacques Vidrine wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
>>> simon 2005-07-31 13:23:50 UTC
>>> FreeBSD ports repository
>>> Modified files:
>>> security/vuxml vuln.xml
>>> Document gnupg -- OpenPGP symmetric encryption vulnerability.
>>> Note: this is mainly a theoretical vulnerability.
>>> Revision Changes Path
>>> 1.763 +38 -1 ports/security/vuxml/vuln.xml
>> Thanks, Simon. Here are a couple of other points that this entry
>> should maybe reflect:
>> = Other software implementing OpenPGP is likely affected, e.g. the
>> Perl Crypt::OpenPGP module (ports/security/p5-Crypt-OpenPGP)
> Doh, I had for some reason not thought of that. It seems like there
> is p5-Crypt-OpenPGP, security/pgpin, security/pgp, and security/pgp6
> which are not just frontends.
> From a quick check of the pgp 2.6.3 docs it seems to also support CFB
> so I would think it is also vulnerable.
Hmm. The flaw is in the /OpenPGP variant/ of CFB. So I am uncertain
whether PGP 2 is affected...
> All the projects seems to be rather dead (no activity for 3+ years)...
>> = GnuPG and others "resolved" this issue by disabling the "quick
>> check" when using a session key derived from public key encryption.
>> But the issue still exists when using symmetric encryption directly,
>> e.g. with the `-c' or `--symmetric' flags to gpg. Of course in that
>> case it is even less likely to affect a real world user.
> Should a comment about this be added to the VuXML entry? I think it
> seems like a bit of overkill to mark the recent gnupg still vulnerable
> due to the _very_ low likeliness that anyone is impacted.
A note would be nice, but I agree that it is not helpful to mark
recent gpg as vulnerable.
Jacques A. Vidrine / NTT/Verio
jacques at vidrine.us / jvidrine at verio.net / nectar at freebsd.org
More information about the cvs-ports