Bug 908613 (CVE-2012-6119)

Summary: CVE-2012-6119 Candlepin: Re-enable manifest signature checking
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Kurt Seifried <kseifried>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: bkearney, candlepin-bugs, cpelland, jomara, katello-bugs, mmccune, msuchy, sclewis
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-07-26 07:46:26 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 835977, 908618    
Bug Blocks: 908623, 917158    

Description Kurt Seifried 2013-02-07 07:06:11 UTC
Description of problem:

User can muck with a manifest file, upload it and it will still parse (in most 
reasonable cases, I imagine). 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Get a manifest file. drill down into $manifest.zip > consumer_export.zip 
> export > entitlements
2.  Modify the id value in the first line of the contained file.  If you want,
go ahead and rename the file to match the id string you just modified.
3.  Attempt to import manifest file into CFSE
Actual results:
Manifest file is imported.

Expected results:
Manifest file should be rejected due to lack of signature integrity.

Additional info:

* Apparently a known backlog issue in candlepin - tracked here to assure 
visibility in QE.

* Does this exist in the wild? If so, what's to stop a customer from staying 
on any existing CFSE install and hacking away at a manifest to their heart's 
content?  I know such changes used to get rejected.  Not sure how recent a 
development this is.

External reference:

Comment 2 errata-xmlrpc 2013-03-26 19:17:46 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Subscription Asset Manager 1.2

Via RHSA-2013:0686 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-0686.html

Comment 3 Kurt Seifried 2013-07-26 07:38:29 UTC
The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having moderate security impact in CloudForms 1.1. This issue is not currently planned to be addressed in future updates.