Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 185398 - net-misc/nxnode < 3.0.0-r2 authentication bug
Summary: net-misc/nxnode < 3.0.0-r2 authentication bug
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Security
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Vulnerabilities (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Security
URL: http://www.nomachine.com/news-read.ph...
Whiteboard: ~? [noglsa]
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-07-15 11:03 UTC by Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED)
Modified: 2007-07-22 20:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-07-15 11:03:33 UTC
ROME, Italy, July 10th, 2007 - A bug in the procedure allowing the shadowing of NX sessions causes the agent to default to the host-based authentication, making it possible for other users successfully logged on to the NX system to get access to the remote display. This bug affects NX Node versions 3.0.0-70 and 3.0.0-71, but not NX Node version 3.0.0-76.

Although exploitation of this bug requires a valid account on the server machine, if you are using any version of NX Node released prior to version 3.0.0-76, you are strongly advised to upgrade.
Comment 1 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-07-15 11:04:04 UTC
nx please advise and patch as necessary.
Comment 2 Bernard Cafarelli gentoo-dev 2007-07-22 14:13:43 UTC
Sorry for the delay, I was on holiday!

Affected versions are net-misc/nxnode-3.0.0 (removed some weeks ago from portage), and current net-misc/nxnode-3.0.0-r1, both marked ~arch

I will bump nxnode (and remove the vulnerable -r1 ebuild) ASAP
Other NX servers (include 2.1 free edition) are not vulnerable, as they do not provide the session shadow capability
Comment 3 Bernard Cafarelli gentoo-dev 2007-07-22 15:17:56 UTC
ok, nxnode-3.0.0-r2 is in CVS, and -r1 (last affected version in portage) was removed
Comment 4 Pierre-Yves Rofes (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-07-22 18:44:46 UTC
Thanks Bernard. 
Not sure if we have to call x86 for stabling though, because 2.1.0 is already stable and not affected while 3.x was in unstable. I don't see anything in our policy for this case, but I'd say no because stable users don't have to bump as they're not affected. Security, any opinions on this? 
Comment 5 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-07-22 20:49:06 UTC
If it was never stable policy says noglsa.