From ${URL} : Description A security issue has been reported in SSSD, which can be exploited by malicious users to bypass certain security restrictions. The security issue is caused due to the application improperly restricting access when the Simple Access Provider is used with the "simple_deny_groups" option (/etc/sssd/sssd.conf), which can be exploited to bypass the access control. Successful exploitation requires that the application is configured to use the Microsoft Active Directory Provider or an equivalent LDAP Provider configuration. The security issue is reported in versions 1.9.0 and later. Solution Fixed in the GIT repository (please see the vendor's advisory for details). A fix is planned to be released in version 1.9.5. Provided and/or discovered by The vendor credits Kaushik Banerjee, Red Hat Quality Engineering Team. Original Advisory SSSD: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2013-March/014066.html sssd-1-9 GIT: http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=8b8019fe3dd1564fba657e219ec20ff816c7ffdb http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=26590d31f492dbbd36be6d0bde46a4bd3b221edb http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=754b09b5444e6da88ed58d6deaed8b815e268b6b http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=b63830b142053f99bfe954d4be5a2b0f68ce3a93 master GIT: http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=c0bca1722d6f9dfb654ad78397be70f79ff39af1 http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=6569d57e3bc168e6e83d70333b48c5cb43aa04c4 http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=6837eee3f7f81c0ee454d3718d67d7f3cc6b48ef http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/patch/?id=7619be9f6bf649665fcbeee9e6b120f9f9cba2a5 Red Hat Bug#910938: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910938
CVE-2013-0287 (http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2013-0287): The Simple Access Provider in System Security Services Daemon (SSSD) 1.9.0 through 1.9.4, when the Active Directory provider is used, does not properly enforce the simple_deny_groups option, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions.
What is going on here? 1.9.6 is in the tree for a long time and in the process of stabilization. See 510870
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #3) > What is going on here? 1.9.6 is in the tree for a long time and in the > process of stabilization. See 510870 Thank you for letting us know, and I am going to set this to cleanup mode to clean up the vulnerable packages. From what I see it looks like 1.9.4-r3 might be vulnerable, if the fix was included in 1.9.5-r1. Can you confirm this?
(In reply to Yury German from comment #4) > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #3) > > What is going on here? 1.9.6 is in the tree for a long time and in the > > process of stabilization. See 510870 > > Thank you for letting us know, and I am going to set this to cleanup mode to > clean up the vulnerable packages. From what I see it looks like 1.9.4-r3 > might be vulnerable, if the fix was included in 1.9.5-r1. > > Can you confirm this? According to comment #1, there are four commits in 1.9 branch that fixed that problem back in Feb 2013. The release of 1.9.6 was in 2013-11-06 so I'd say that this is indeed fixed in 1.9.6 According to comment #1 again: "Fixed in the GIT repository (please see the vendor's advisory for details). A fix is planned to be released in version 1.9.5." I will write back to this back when the latest 1.9.6 is stabilized and I have removed all the previous ebuilds.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #5) > (In reply to Yury German from comment #4) > > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #3) > > > What is going on here? 1.9.6 is in the tree for a long time and in the > > > process of stabilization. See 510870 > > > > Thank you for letting us know, and I am going to set this to cleanup mode to > > clean up the vulnerable packages. From what I see it looks like 1.9.4-r3 > > might be vulnerable, if the fix was included in 1.9.5-r1. > > > > Can you confirm this? > > According to comment #1, there are four commits in 1.9 branch that fixed > that problem back in Feb 2013. The release of 1.9.6 was in 2013-11-06 so I'd > say that this is indeed fixed in 1.9.6 > According to comment #1 again: > "Fixed in the GIT repository (please see the vendor's advisory for details). > A fix is planned to be released in version 1.9.5." > > I will write back to this back when the latest 1.9.6 is stabilized and I > have removed all the previous ebuilds. I just realized that 1.8 is not affected so I just dropped anything between 1.9.0 and 1.9.6 + 21 May 2014; Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> -sssd-1.9.4-r3.ebuild, + -sssd-1.9.5-r1.ebuild, -sssd-1.9.6-r1.ebuild: + Clean up old ebuilds per #462496 +
No glsa needed. Closed.