Bug 1220262 - VUL-0: CVE-2023-50782: openssl: consider backporting implicit rejection in PKCS#1 v1.5
Summary: VUL-0: CVE-2023-50782: openssl: consider backporting implicit rejection in PK...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: SUSE Security Incidents
Classification: Novell Products
Component: Incidents (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Other
: P3 - Medium : Normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Otto Hollmann
QA Contact: Security Team bot
URL: https://smash.suse.de/issue/387939/
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: CVE-2023-50782
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2024-02-23 10:36 UTC by Carlos López
Modified: 2024-03-19 07:59 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Found By: Security Response Team
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Carlos López 2024-02-23 10:36:25 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1218043 +++

Description:
The fix for CVE-2020-25659 is not addressing the leakage in the RSA
decryption. Because of the API design, the fix is generally not
believed to be possible to be fully addressed. The issue can be
mitigated by using a cryptographic backed that implements implicit
rejection (Marvin workaround). Only applications that use RSA decryption with PKCS#1 v1.5 padding are affected.

Implicit rejection in RHEL has shipped in 9.3.0. Will ship in 9.2.eus,
8.6.eus, 8.8.eus, and 8.9.z. No other releases are planned

References:
https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/9785
https://people.redhat.com/~hkario/marvin/
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13817

References:
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2023-50782
Comment 1 Carlos López 2024-02-23 10:37:26 UTC
Newest openssl we have is 3.1.4 in Factory, we should consider backporting PKCS#1 v1.5 implicit rejection from 3.2.0
Comment 2 Pedro Monreal Gonzalez 2024-02-23 12:59:06 UTC
This was reworked later in [0], then partially reverted in [1] and then more rework in [2] in the context of CVE-2022-4304. So, just porting the commits in the pull request [3] might not be enough.

Do we need this in SP6 and ALP? In Factory, we are planning to move to openssl version 3.2.1.

I'm assigning this to Otto.

[0] github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b1892d21
[1] github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4209ce68
[2] github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/f06ef165
[3] github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13817