Поиск уязвимостей

ALT-PU-2023-8757: package `wolfssl` update to version 5.6.6-alt1

wolfSSL SP Math All RSA implementation is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack, new variation of a timing Bleichenbacher style attack, when built with the following options to configure: --enable-all CFLAGS="-DWOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA" The define “WOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA” enables static RSA cipher suites, which is not recommended, and has been disabled by default since wolfSSL 3.6.6. Therefore the default build since 3.6.6, even with "--enable-all", is not vulnerable to the Marvin Attack. The vulnerability is specific to static RSA cipher suites, and expected to be padding-independent. The vulnerability allows an attacker to decrypt ciphertexts and forge signatures after probing with a large number of test observations. However the server’s private key is not exposed.

wolfSSL SP Math All RSA implementation is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack, new variation of a timing Bleichenbacher style attack, when built with the following options to configure: --enable-all CFLAGS="-DWOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA" The define “WOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA” enables static RSA cipher suites, which is not recommended, and has been disabled by default since wolfSSL 3.6.6.  Therefore the default build since 3.6.6, even with "--enable-all", is not vulnerable to the Marvin Attack. The vulnerability is specific to static RSA cipher suites, and expected to be padding-independent. The vulnerability allows an attacker to decrypt ciphertexts and forge signatures after probing with a large number of test observations. However the server’s private key is not exposed.

Marvin Attack vulnerability in SP Math All RSA

wolfSSL SP Math All RSA implementation is vulnerable to the Marvin Att ...

wolfSSL SP Math All RSA implementation is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack, new variation of a timing Bleichenbacher style attack, when built with the following options to configure: --enable-all CFLAGS="-DWOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA" The define “WOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA” enables static RSA cipher suites, which is not recommended, and has been disabled by default since wolfSSL 3.6.6.  Therefore the default build since 3.6.6, even with "--enable-all", is not vulnerable to the Marvin Attack. The vulnerability is specific to static RSA cipher suites, and expected to be padding-independent. The vulnerability allows an attacker to decrypt ciphertexts and forge signatures after probing with a large number of test observations. However the server’s private key is not exposed.

Уязвимость библиотеки SSL/TLS wolfSSL, связанная с раскрытием информации через несоответствие, позволяющая нарушителю расшифровывать зашифрованные тексты и подделывать подписи

In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging).

In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging).

Heap-buffer over-read with WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS

In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the ...

In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging).

The side-channel protected T-Table implementation in wolfSSL up to version 5.6.5 protects against a side-channel attacker with cache-line resolution. In a controlled environment such as Intel SGX, an attacker can gain a per instruction sub-cache-line resolution allowing them to break the cache-line-level protection. For details on the attack refer to: https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2024.i1.457-500

The side-channel protected T-Table implementation in wolfSSL up to version 5.6.5 protects against a side-channel attacker with cache-line resolution. In a controlled environment such as Intel SGX, an attacker can gain a per instruction sub-cache-line resolution allowing them to break the cache-line-level protection. For details on the attack refer to: https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2024.i1.457-500

The side-channel protected T-Table implementation in wolfSSL up to ver ...

wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating.

wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating.

Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement

wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS recor ...