|Summary:||CVE-2011-2686 CVE-2011-2705 CVE-2011-3009 ruby: Properly initialize the random number generator when forking new process|
|Product:||[Other] Security Response||Reporter:||Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov>|
|Component:||vulnerability||Assignee:||Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:|
|Version:||unspecified||CC:||amarecek, azelinka, eng-i18n-bugs, jeremy, mmorsi, mtasaka, tagoh, vanmeeuwen+fedora, vdanen, vondruch|
|Target Milestone:||---||Keywords:||Reopened, Security|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2012-01-30 18:57:46 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||722419, 723766, 768828, 768829, 768830|
|Bug Blocks:||722421, 750567|
Description Jan Lieskovsky 2011-07-15 09:51:59 UTC
It was found that Ruby did not properly reinitialize the random number generator, when forking new Ruby process. A local attacker could use this flaw to easier predict random numbers. References:  https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704409  http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2011/07/02/ruby-1-8-7-p352-released/  http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4579  http://svn.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=31713  http://svn.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revision&revision=32050  http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/07/11/1  http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/07/12/14
Comment 1 Jan Lieskovsky 2011-07-15 09:54:44 UTC
This issue affects the version of the ruby package, as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. -- This issue affects the versions of the ruby package, as shipped with Fedora release of 14 and 15. Please schedule an update.
Comment 3 Jan Lieskovsky 2011-07-15 10:02:25 UTC
Created ruby tracking bugs for this issue Affects: fedora-all [bug 722419]
Comment 9 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2011-07-20 06:06:37 UTC
It clearly seems that there are two issues here, and it should not be covered in the same CVE id. More details and request for split at: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.oss.general/5446/focus=5524
Comment 10 Vincent Danen 2011-07-20 20:18:56 UTC
The second issue has been assigned the name CVE-2011-2705, which is specific to the securerandom.rb module, which svn r32050 corrects.
Comment 12 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2011-07-21 05:10:14 UTC
Statement CVE-2011-3009: The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security impact, a future update may address this flaw in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and 5.
Comment 14 Vincent Danen 2011-08-08 15:48:39 UTC
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2011-3009 to the following vulnerability: Name: CVE-2011-3009 URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-3009 Assigned: 20110805 Reference: http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/07/20/1 Reference: http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4338 Ruby before 1.8.6-p114 does not reset the random seed upon forking, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to predict the values of random numbers by leveraging knowledge of the number sequence obtained in a different child process, a related issue to CVE-2003-0900. (I'm not sure why MITRE assigned CVE-2011-3009 to this as it sounds like this is an exact duplicate of CVE-2011-2686; I've inquired as to what makes this different from CVE-2011-2686).
Comment 16 Vincent Danen 2011-09-21 15:13:52 UTC
I've not heard anything back from MITRE about the difference, but I've looked at the CVE entry for CVE-2011-2686 and it reads: Ruby before 1.8.7-p352 does not reset the random seed upon forking, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to predict the values of random numbers by leveraging knowledge of the number sequence obtained in a different child process, a related issue to CVE-2003-0900. NOTE: this issue exists because of a regression during Ruby 1.8.6 development. Which has me a bit more confused. By the sounds of the description, CVE-2011-2686 was fixed in 1.8.6, but regressed which caused the flaw in 1.8.7 (I have no idea if this is the case). I suspect we should use CVE-2011-2686 to describe any fixes in 1.8.6 and CVE-2011-3009 to describe any fixes in 1.8.7.
Comment 17 errata-xmlrpc 2011-12-06 12:08:04 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Via RHSA-2011:1581 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1581.html