Re: CVE-2011-2147 is a dud, was Re:World writable pid and lock files.
On 2011-05-30 at 23:26 Paul Wouters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
* To: email@example.com
* Subject: World writable pid and lock files.
* From: helpermn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:40:22 +0200
* Message-id: <[🔎] 05578BFF-44FC-41B3-9E8E-C11B5B9A6C11@gmail.com>
I imagine why files listed below have 666 file mode bits set:
Files are created during startup of ipsec (pluto) and keepalived
I think thar leaving them world writable is security hole. For
example delete or change of its content could confuses monit
watching them running and restarting when they die.
It seems this report got turned into a CVE for Openswan, CVE-2011-2147
If debian is still shipping openswan-2.2 unpatched anywhere (released
January 2005) this could be a problem, albeit an extremely minor
one compared to the actual two CVE issues that have come up in
since then. We hope that any openswan-2.2 version that is in active
has at least gotten some serious looking at based on the security
that have since been made.
openswan 2.6.x on debian/ubuntu and fedora/rhel/centos create a read-
file in /var/locl/subsys.
If someone finds an issue that is actually a security issue, and they
deem it worthy of a CVE release, we strongly encourage those people to
contact us beforehand so we can do a proper responsible vulnerability
disclosure. We also strongly recommend that the CVE people at least
to make an attempt to contact a vendor before releasing
to the public. We don't bite, honest!
It looks as if someone or some company was in need of reaching their
CVE quota of the month. It would be a shame if future CVE
would get ignored because of too many CVE releases on 6 year old
I see some mistakes. In stable Debian realease and what I use:
strongswan 4.4.1-5.1 (newest release is 4.5.2 - project homepage)
keepalived 1.1.20-1 (newest release 1.2.2 - project homepage)
So problem is similar but it is not old openswan-2.2 about which we
can read in CVE. I don't know who/how/why did the mistake but the
problem which I have reported here (Debian security group) still exists.