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

TLS Client-initiated renegotiation attack (CVE-2011-1473) #1233

Closed
ghost opened this issue May 27, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

TLS Client-initiated renegotiation attack (CVE-2011-1473) #1233

ghost opened this issue May 27, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 27, 2019

4.2.0 and 4.3.0 is in use. when do the security scan, CVE-2011-1473 related issue is reported for the port 9876(nameserver) and 10911(broker).

is any version/release with this issued sovled?

@duhenglucky
Copy link
Contributor

@bix29 it seems that it's a openssl issue, could you pull a request to resolve this problem? and it seems that only OpenSSL 1.0.2 or previous version has this problem.

@Journey-x
Copy link

My Server OpenSSL version is 1.1.1d and CVE-2011-1473 still has this problem.

@ShadowySpirits
Copy link
Member

@bix29 it seems that it's a openssl issue, could you pull a request to resolve this problem? and it seems that only OpenSSL 1.0.2 or previous version has this problem.

IMO, this issue is caused by SslProvider being always JDK instead of the Provider selected in upper code by default

TlsHelper.java:

            if (tlsTestModeEnable) {  // default is true
                SelfSignedCertificate selfSignedCertificate = new SelfSignedCertificate();
                return SslContextBuilder
                    .forServer(selfSignedCertificate.certificate(), selfSignedCertificate.privateKey())
                    .sslProvider(SslProvider.JDK)   // always use jdk ssl
                    .clientAuth(ClientAuth.OPTIONAL)
                    .build();
            } else { ...

@duhenglucky duhenglucky added this to the 4.8.0 milestone Mar 12, 2020
vongosling pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2021
vongosling added a commit that referenced this issue May 19, 2021
* [ISSUE #1233] Fix CVE-2011-1473

* fix Multiple instances in the same application share MQClientInstance

* [ISSUE #2748] Fix deleteSubscriptionGroup not remove consumer offset

* [ISSUE #2745] Changed the support time of the request/reply feature to 4.6.0.

Co-authored-by: von gosling <vongosling@apache.org>

* [ISSUE #2729] Replace with Math.min method call

* [ISSUE #2801]Fix NamesrvAddr connot set in Producer

* [ISSUE 2800] optimize: the spelling of topicSynFlag

Co-authored-by: ph3636 <tianxingguang@kanzhun.com>

* [ISSUE #2803] Fix the endpoint cannot get instanceId without http (#2804)

* fix the endpoint cannot get instanceId without http

* fix the endpoint cannot get instanceId without http

* add unit test

* add unit test

* add unit test

Co-authored-by: panzhi33 <wb-pz502261@alibaba-inc.com>

* fix messageArrivingListener NPE

* [ISSUE #2538]Optimize log output when message trace saving fails

* [ISSUE #2811] Fix the wrong topic was consumed in the DefaultMessageStoreTest test program

* [ISSUE #2821] Overriding the ServiceThread#shutdown in HAClient class

* [ISSUE #2805] remove redundant package imports

* [ISSUE #2833] Support trace for TranscationProducer (#2834)

* [ISSUE #2732] Fix message loss problem when rebalance with LitePullConsumer (#2832)

* [ISSUE #2732] Fix message loss problem when rebalance with LitePullConsumer

* Fix message loss problem when rebalance with LitePullConsumer, update 2

* [ISSUE #2846]fix -E might not port to other systems

* fix some nonconformity after checkstyle

* Support OpenTracing(#2861)

* [ISSUE #2872] remove log files created by integration test when mvn clean

* [ISSUE #2872] move log files created by integration test to target dir

* Change log level to debug: "Half offset {} has been committed/rolled back"

* Fix unit test stability

Bump mockito-core to 3.10.0, remove powermock dependency, suppress useless logging

* [ISSUE #2898] Resolve rocketmq-example project failed during checkstyle execution (#2899)

Co-authored-by: SSpirits <shadowyspirits@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: panzhi33 <wb-pz502261@alibaba-inc.com>
Co-authored-by: panzhi <panzhi33@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: ArronHuang <41609451+ArronHuang@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: von gosling <vongosling@apache.org>
Co-authored-by: drgnchan <40224023+drgnchan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: zhangjidi2016 <zhangjidi@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Co-authored-by: ph3636 <38041490+ph3636@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: ph3636 <tianxingguang@kanzhun.com>
Co-authored-by: BurningCN <1015773611@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: francis lee <francislee.cn@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: 灼华 <43363120+BurningCN@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: yuz10 <845238369@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: huangli <areyouok@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: chenrl <raymond2366@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: ayanamist <ayanamist@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zhangjidi2016 <1017543663@qq.com>
GenerousMan pushed a commit to GenerousMan/rocketmq that referenced this issue Aug 12, 2022
pulllock pushed a commit to pulllock/rocketmq that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants