Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

python3Packages.cryptography: 3.1.1 -> 3.2 (security, CVE-2020-25659) #101751

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 28, 2020

Conversation

@primeos
Copy link
Member

@primeos primeos commented Oct 26, 2020

SECURITY ISSUE: Attempted to make RSA PKCS#1v1.5 decryption more
constant time, to protect against Bleichenbacher vulnerabilities. Due to
limitations imposed by our API, we cannot completely mitigate this
vulnerability and a future release will contain a new API which is
designed to be resilient to these for contexts where it is required.
Credit to Hubert Kario for reporting the issue. CVE-2020-25659

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
SECURITY ISSUE: Attempted to make RSA PKCS#1v1.5 decryption more
constant time, to protect against Bleichenbacher vulnerabilities. Due to
limitations imposed by our API, we cannot completely mitigate this
vulnerability and a future release will contain a new API which is
designed to be resilient to these for contexts where it is required.
Credit to Hubert Kario for reporting the issue. CVE-2020-25659
@andir
Copy link
Member

@andir andir commented Oct 28, 2020

We also have a 2.9 version, should we apply the same patch there? Is that version now considered "insecure"? The CVE description says everything < 3.2 is vulnerable.

@primeos
Copy link
Member Author

@primeos primeos commented Oct 28, 2020

We also have a 2.9 version, should we apply the same patch there?

Yeah, I think we should try to apply pyca/cryptography@58494b4, the tests should hopefully cover that code path.

Personally I'd like to mark it as insecure, but I don't think we should given that there are probably still a lot of legacy Python 2 packages around that depend on it :o

Is that version now considered "insecure"?

AFAIK, yes. When I opened the PR the CVE details weren't available, but now it seems pretty clear. Though I'm not sure if / how many Python packages are really affected by this (and how practical the attack is for them). (But I don't mean that we should just ignore it.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants