Hello, The last days, I spent quite some hours on backporting and debugging patches for CVE-2018-15587 (Signature Spoofing in PGP encrypted email) to evolution and evolution-data-server packages for Jessie LTS. One problem is that the scope of CVE-2018-15587 is a bit blurry. While the CVE description speaks specifically about the possibility to craft emails in a way that they spuriously appear to be *signed* - a vulnerability that got revealed in the aftermath of SigSpoof - the corresponding bugreports link to several related OpenPGP weaknesses in evolution{-data-server}. E.g., our security tracker additionally links[1] to the upstream bugs "[GPG] Mails that are not encrypted look encrypted"[2] and "Sometimes fails to properly decrypt large GPG encrypted messages"[3]. [1] https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2018-15587 [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/issues/3 [3] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/issues/75 I now have a working version of evolution - at least I tested it thoroughly. It has both the signature spoofing and encryption spoofing bugs fixed. You can find amd64 builds of the packages in my personal repository[4], further testing much appreciated. [4] https://people.debian.org/~mejo/debian/jessie-security/ With evolution-data-server, the situation is slightly more complicated. I'm still debugging issues with the patches[5] that are supposed to fix the "[GPG] Mails that are not encrypted look encrypted" issue. [5] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/commit/93306a29 and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/commit/accb0e24 My question: do you agree that these fixes are within the scope of CVE-2018-15587? If so, then I will continue working on the issue and upload both of evolution and evolution-data-server in a batch once I got the issues sorted out. Another option would be to upload evolution to jessie-security right now and decide that evolution-data-server is not affected by CVE-2018-15587, since it's only prone to "encrypted message spoofing", not to "signature spoofing". But in my eyes, that would be a sham. Another problem is that I'm already five hours over my allocated LTS time for April. I'm fine with doing some extra volunteer work on the issue though. Cheers jonas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature