From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EF97EEB56E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29B14180D; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org D29B14180D X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BpBmxkNv8FpW; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843C141841; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 843C141841 Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224971BF277 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBC282E5F for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org EEBC282E5F X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LowILpQmIBJE for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (relay7-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.200]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FEAB82E19 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 8FEAB82E19 Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5865120005; Fri, 8 Sep 2023 20:59:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 22:59:38 +0200 To: nvd@nist.gov Message-ID: <20230908225938.249f3ff6@windsurf> In-Reply-To: <20230903000100.0c1b187b@windsurf> References: <20230903000100.0c1b187b@windsurf> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-GND-Sasl: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1694206779; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=w4EVfEZ+LuadFp08mnK2jIJS7l+V09Y7hkeS0vFhYA4=; b=IyAyyD9YX1liS2DP3/Rud2545/Z+XTp9ng1Zx02pB+bTCzJW5F8E/xNnyvqoz3AVHri25m IXGLaORu/UcQB61FJocHUm7CluBsbvQDe5XgMAADU7RfwFdKXBwt+ekFGt7Pg2RdfO4qCO aFdypSSOXpKgNo5Xd/FxaiWSH47UQm+Y682/WRJJBgQY3oGamb7OosXOE0l6HGcs0s+a/H XBEjItgMfQDMJtcaqj2GgBznhXWbtEpR9OLCmdc3r7HAuqH/y3Rvz1cqQIQbKCV0dL+zYo 1woqzaxbCS6tdYEUGf58LURHYqxhhgKd+FZDpvLTYGZDYuHCs8C8zzCST0AFlw== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=gm1 header.b=IyAyyD9Y Subject: Re: [Buildroot] CVE-2018-11574 version range fix X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot Reply-To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: "buildroot@buildroot.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" Hello, Gentle ping on the below bug report. Thanks! Thomas Petazzoni On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 00:01:00 +0200 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > CVE-2018-11574 is marked in the NVD database as affecting all pppd > versions, as it has as its only "Configuration" the following CPE > identifier match: > > cpe:2.3:a:point-to-point_protocol_project:point-to-point_protocol:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:* > > However, it turns out that the upstream pppd was *never* affected by > CVE-2018-11574. Let me walk through the story. > > CVE-2018-11574 affects the EAP-TLS implementation in pppd. However, > EAP-TLS was not supported in upstream pppd before its 2.4.9 release, > thanks to commit > https://github.com/ppp-project/ppp/commit/e87fe1bbd37a1486c5223f110e9ce3ef75971f93. > > Before that EAP-TLS support for pppd was provided as an out-of-tree > patch, provided by a third party developer at > https://jjkeijser.github.io/ppp/download.html. It is this patch that > was affected by CVE-2018-11574. As can be seen at > https://jjkeijser.github.io/ppp/download.html, all versions of the > patch prior to version 1.101 are affected, as 1.101 was precisely > released to fix CVE-2018-11574. > > So: before pppd 2.4.9, the only way to be affected by CVE-2018-11574 > was by having applied a third-party patch. I am not sure how to reflect > this correctly in the CVE-2018-11574 information in the NVD database. > To me, if one applies random patches to a code base, for sure those > patches can introduce additional security vulnerabilities, so it > doesn't make sense that CVE-2018-11574 is reported against pppd > upstream. > > In addition, in the EAP-TLS code that was added in pppd 2.4.9, the > issue of CVE-2018-11574 is already fixed. Indeed, we did a diff between > the out-of-tree EAP-TLS patch in version 0.999 (affected) and 1.101 > (not affected), which gives the attached file. And those fixes are > indeed present in commit > https://github.com/ppp-project/ppp/commit/e87fe1bbd37a1486c5223f110e9ce3ef75971f93, > which introduced EAP-TLS support in upstream pppd. > > Therefore: upstream pppd was never affected by this issue. Prior to > pppd 2.4.9, there was no EAP-TLS support, and starting from 2.4.9, the > EAP-TLS is correct with regard to CVE-2018-11574. > > At the very least, I would suggest to change the CVE-2018-11574 > information to indicate that only versions up to (and excluding) 2.4.9 > are affected. Do you think this would be possible ? > > Best regards, > > Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot