Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 170874 - app-crypt/{gnupg|gpgme} Signing issue (CVE-2007-1263)
Summary: app-crypt/{gnupg|gpgme} Signing issue (CVE-2007-1263)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Crypto team [DISABLED]
URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename....
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 177745 177747 198656
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2007-03-14 13:51 UTC by Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED)
Modified: 2008-01-10 15:15 UTC (History)
2 users (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 2007-03-14 13:51:49 UTC
GnuPG 1.4.6 and earlier and GPGME before 1.1.4, when run from the command line, does not visually distinguish signed and unsigned portions of OpenPGP messages with multiple components, which might allow remote attackers to forge the contents of a message without detection.
Comment 1 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-14 13:57:10 UTC
i don't consider this bug as a security issue, whereas Debian has marked it "high" is sarge:
"gnupg (1.4.1-1.sarge7) stable-security; urgency=high"

Comment 2 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-14 14:09:37 UTC
I arbitrarily myself take the selfish decision to reassign this to the maintainer/herd
Comment 3 Alon Bar-Lev (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-14 15:22:20 UTC
OK.
We have gnupg-1.4.7 and gpgme-1.1.4 in tree.
We will wait for a few weeks and request stable.

security: Please drop a not if you think it should be done quicker.
Comment 4 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-03-15 21:11:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> 
> security: Please drop a not if you think it should be done quicker.
> 

Thanks Alon,

i don't think that merits a security timeframe escalation. With a backport/patch i would have said "stabilize it", but here i agree with waiting a few moments.

I'm closing the bug then. Feel free to reopen if you disagree.
Comment 5 Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-05-08 20:37:48 UTC
I strongly disagree with Raphael that this sort of message manipulation is a minor issue. Please prepare for stabilizing asap. 
Comment 6 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-05-09 13:19:42 UTC
I tend to agree with Carlo on this one. Security any other opinions?
Comment 7 Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-05-11 19:19:49 UTC
Hm, seeing that you stabilize 1.4.7-r1 I have to tell that this does not suffice. according to this¹ source gnupg 2.0.3 has to go stable, too.


[1] http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/86299
Comment 8 Alon Bar-Lev (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-05-11 19:26:08 UTC
We cannot have gnupg-2.X stable until we resolve some issues.
bug#159851, where bug#159870 is the most critical.
Comment 9 Alon Bar-Lev (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-06-22 16:56:56 UTC
All dependencies are waiting for stable, nothing I can do here...
Comment 10 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-01-10 15:15:15 UTC
gnupg-2.0.7 stable everywhere but on mips (surprise :P) - Bug 202158 , ditto for gpgme-1.1.5 - Bug 198656.

security doesn't want this bug, closing. Reopen if you disagree.