Bug 869827
Summary: | FIPS mode: Subversion fails due to MD5 attempt | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | jared jennings <jjennings> |
Component: | libgcrypt | Assignee: | Tomas Mraz <tmraz> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 6.3 | ||
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-10-25 18:59:51 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
jared jennings
2012-10-24 22:15:00 UTC
The /etc/gcrypt/fips_enabled should not be present at all on your system. The recommended way to enable FIPS mode on your system is with fips=1 on the kernel command line. Does the problem really appear even when /etc/gcrypt/fips_enabled is not present? No. svn no longer exits with an error when I remove /etc/gcrypt/fips_enabled. But I do get a message in /var/log/messages: "svn: Libgcrypt warning: MD5 used - FIPS mode inactivated." That doesn't look compliant. Is it actually OK? I wrote /etc/gcrypt/fips_enabled because http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gcrypt/Enabling-FIPS-mode.html says that turns on "Enforced FIPS mode," which it sounded like I needed. Yes, the message is not particularly correct as usage of MD5 in TLS is and must be allowed otherwise TLS versions < 1.2 which have only one PRF that uses SHA1 and MD5 together would not work at all. Also note that the inactivated FIPS mode of libgcrypt does not mean that the operational self tests such as the pairwise tests of generated keys or RNG continuous test will not be invoked anymore. They will be still invoked. OK, thanks for your explanation. I'll point at it from my compliance documentation. Unless you want to use this bug to track changes to the message, it seems like NOTABUG to me. |