[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D9FF507F-08CC-4A34-901F-7A6A5595B4D8@stufft.io>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:02:36 -0400
From: Donald Stufft <donald@...fft.io>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
kseifried@...hat.com
Subject: Re: rubygems insecure download (and other problems)
On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> I don't think this is CVE worthy, but it is worth fixing and not
> putting everyone at such risk:
>
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834785
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997179
>
> Problem #1:
> install /etc/gemrc to install gems via https rather than http
>
> everyone should be enabling HTTPS where possible, intercepting and
> modifying HTTP is trivial.
>
> Problem #2:
> it redirects to production.cf.rubygems.org which is on cloudfront so
> has certificate mismatch, so either users have to accept insecurity,
> or... well there is no second choice =(.
>
> https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=production.cf.rubygems.org
>
> - --
> Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
> PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
>
pip has a CVE for downloading via HTTP, does switching the
gem to HTTPS actually make gem verify it?
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-1629
-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
