[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: matrixssl



On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:33PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Brian May <bam@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > I will have a look and see if I can hack^h^h^h^hpatch the Debian package
> > to include the above security fix; although I don't have any exploits
> > test it with.
> 
> Ok, I have attached my proposed debdiff patch. It builds using sbuild. I
> haven't claimed this package, and unlikely to have time to continue this
> month. So if anybody wants to take over before then, feel free to do so.
> -- 
> Brian May <bam@debian.org>

> diff -u matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/changelog matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/changelog
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/changelog
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/changelog
> @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> +matrixssl (1.8.8-1+deb7u1) wheezy-security; urgency=high
> +
> +  * Non-maintainer upload by the LTS Team.
> +  * Fix integer overflow in bn_reverse.
> +
> + -- Brian May <bam@debian.org>  Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:09:05 +1000
> +
>  matrixssl (1.8.8-1) unstable; urgency=high
>  
>    * new upstream version.
> diff -u matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/control matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/control
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/control
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/control
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  Priority: optional
>  Section: libs
>  Maintainer: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
> -Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc]
> +Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc], quilt
>  Standards-Version: 3.8.0.1
>  
>  Package: libmatrixssl1.8-dev
> diff -u matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/rules matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/rules
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/rules
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/rules
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>  DIR =$(shell pwd)/debian/libmatrixssl$(SOVER)
>  
>  unpack: deb-checkdir unpack-gnu-stamp unpack-diet-stamp
> +	quilt push -a
>  unpack-gnu-stamp:
>  	mkdir -p gnu/static gnu/shared
>  	(cd gnu/static && tar xzf - && ln -s matrixssl* matrixssl) <'$(TARGZ)'
> @@ -61,6 +62,7 @@
>  	touch build-diet-stamp
>  
>  clean: deb-checkdir deb-checkuid
> +	quilt pop -a || true
>  	rm -rf gnu diet examples
>  	rm -f unpack-gnu-stamp unpack-diet-stamp build-gnu-stamp \
>  	  build-diet-stamp
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8.orig/.pc/.quilt_patches
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/.pc/.quilt_patches
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +debian/patches
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8.orig/.pc/.quilt_series
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/.pc/.quilt_series
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +series
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8.orig/.pc/.version
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/.pc/.version
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +2
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8.orig/debian/patches/fix-bn_reverse.patch
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/patches/fix-bn_reverse.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +--- a/diet/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> ++++ b/diet/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> +@@ -945,6 +945,9 @@
> + 	int32				ix, iy;
> + 	unsigned char	t;
> + 
> ++	if (len == 0) {
> ++		return;
> ++	}
> + 	ix = 0;
> + 	iy = len - 1;
> + 	while (ix < iy) {
> +--- a/gnu/shared/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> ++++ b/gnu/shared/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> +@@ -945,6 +945,9 @@
> + 	int32				ix, iy;
> + 	unsigned char	t;
> + 
> ++	if (len == 0) {
> ++		return;
> ++	}
> + 	ix = 0;
> + 	iy = len - 1;
> + 	while (ix < iy) {
> +--- a/gnu/static/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> ++++ b/gnu/static/matrixssl-1-8-8-open/src/crypto/peersec/mpi.c
> +@@ -945,6 +945,9 @@
> + 	int32				ix, iy;
> + 	unsigned char	t;
> + 
> ++	if (len == 0) {
> ++		return;
> ++	}
> + 	ix = 0;
> + 	iy = len - 1;
> + 	while (ix < iy) {
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
> --- matrixssl-1.8.8.orig/debian/patches/series
> +++ matrixssl-1.8.8/debian/patches/series
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +fix-bn_reverse.patch

Having the same hunk three times isn't pretty but I don't have a great
idea how this can be done better in the current packaging either.

Did you try to reproduce the crash mentioned in the CVE details?

Cheers,
 -- Guido


Reply to: