Bug 1358622 (CVE-2016-6251)

Summary:	REJECTED CVE-2016-6251 shadow-utils: Potentially unsafe use of getlogin
Product:	[Other] Security Response	Reporter:	Andrej Nemec <anemec>
Component:	vulnerability	Assignee:	Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	unspecified	CC:	pkis, pvrabec, tmraz
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Security
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-07-21 09:01:30 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1358629
Bug Blocks:	1358628

Description Andrej Nemec 2016-07-21 07:42:57 UTC

A vulnerability was found in shadow-utils. Function getlogin() relies on utmp, which is not a trusted base of information.

References:

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/111

CVE assignment:

http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/115

Comment 1 Andrej Nemec 2016-07-21 08:00:42 UTC

Created shadow-utils tracking bugs for this issue:

Affects: fedora-all [bug 1358629]

Comment 2 Tomas Mraz 2016-07-21 08:40:49 UTC

No, the use of getlogin in shadow-utils is safe (it is used only to diferentiate the user if there are multiple users with the same uid -> same privileges anyway).
See this post which I agree with:
http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/120

Comment 3 Andrej Nemec 2016-07-21 09:01:30 UTC

(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #2)
> No, the use of getlogin in shadow-utils is safe (it is used only to
> diferentiate the user if there are multiple users with the same uid -> same
> privileges anyway).
> See this post which I agree with:
> http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/120

I agree too, closing this as notabug. Thanks for confirmation!

Comment 4 Andrej Nemec 2016-07-25 12:36:15 UTC

Upstream bug:

https://github.com/shadow-maint/shadow/issues/28