Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 1131049 - Update SSL ciphers configured in 389-ds-base
Update SSL ciphers configured in 389-ds-base
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ipa (Show other bugs)
7.0
Unspecified Unspecified
medium Severity unspecified
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Martin Kosek
Namita Soman
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-08-18 08:40 EDT by Martin Kosek
Modified: 2015-03-05 05:13 EST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: ipa-4.1.0-0.1.alpha1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-03-05 05:13:19 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2015:0442 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: ipa security, bug fix, and enhancement update 2015-03-05 09:50:39 EST

  None (edit)
Description Martin Kosek 2014-08-18 08:40:33 EDT
This bug is created as a clone of upstream ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4395

FreeIPA still configure the same (SSL and other) ciphers as in the beginning. Nessus and similar crypto detection tools mark some of the ciphers as low secure.

'''Reports on port 389, 636'''

Reported low secure SSL ciphers (< 56-bit key):
{{{
TLSv1
EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5 Kx=RSA(512) Au=RSA Enc=RC2-CBC(40) Mac=MD5 export 
EXP-RC4-MD5 Kx=RSA(512) Au=RSA Enc=RC4(40) Mac=MD5 export 
}}}

Reported null SSL cyphers:
{{{
NULL-SHA Kx=RSA Au=RSA Enc=None Mac=SHA1 
}}}

Medium strength ciphers (>= 56-bit and < 112-bit key)
{{{
TLSv1
EXP1024-DES-CBC-SHA Kx=RSA(1024) Au=RSA Enc=DES-CBC(56) Mac=SHA1 export 
EXP1024-RC4-SHA Kx=RSA(1024) Au=RSA Enc=RC4(56) Mac=SHA1 export 
DES-CBC-SHA Kx=RSA Au=RSA Enc=DES-CBC(56) Mac=SHA1 
}}}

'''Reports on port 9443:'''

Medium strength ciphers (>= 56-bit and < 112-bit key)
{{{
SSLv3
DES-CBC-SHA Kx=RSA Au=RSA Enc=DES-CBC(56) Mac=SHA1 

TLSv1
DES-CBC-SHA Kx=RSA Au=RSA Enc=DES-CBC(56) Mac=SHA1 
}}}

Additionally, there was a report that httpd has Track and Trace methods enabled. This could be disabled with `TraceEnable` directive.
Comment 2 Namita Soman 2014-09-24 14:45:12 EDT
Please add steps to verify
Comment 3 Martin Kosek 2014-09-25 07:08:57 EDT
I can think of using nmap for listing the supported ciphers.

With ipa-server-3.3.3-28.el7.x86_64 I get:

# nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 636 `hostname`

Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-09-25 07:03 EDT
Nmap scan report for vm-067.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com (10.16.78.67)
Host is up (0.000091s latency).
PORT    STATE SERVICE
636/tcp open  ldapssl
| ssl-enum-ciphers: 
|   TLSv1.0: 
|     ciphers: 
|       SSL_RSA_FIPS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong
|       SSL_RSA_FIPS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA - weak
|       TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA - weak
|       TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_RC4_56_SHA - weak
|       TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 - weak
|       TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 - weak
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA - weak
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA - broken
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - strong
|     compressors: 
|       NULL
|_  least strength: broken

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.12 seconds



With ipa-server-4.0.3-1.el7.x86_64 I get:

# nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 636 `hostname`

Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-09-24 19:06 EDT
Nmap scan report for ipa.mkosek-rhel71.test (10.16.78.57)
Host is up (0.000091s latency).
PORT    STATE SERVICE
636/tcp open  ldapssl
| ssl-enum-ciphers: 
|   TLSv1.2: 
|     ciphers: 
|       TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA - strong
|     compressors: 
|       NULL
|_  least strength: strong

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.28 seconds


Notice the difference in "least strentgh". Ludwig, do you know of any better mean to verify the cipher strength?
Comment 4 Ludwig 2014-09-29 03:05:58 EDT
no, the use of nmap looks good to me, but I don't know where nmap gets its classification of the cipher strength from.
Comment 6 Kaleem 2015-01-20 04:22:29 EST
Verified.

IPA Version:
============
[root@dhcp207-214 ~]# rpm -q ipa-server
ipa-server-4.1.0-15.el7.x86_64
[root@dhcp207-214 ~]# 

[root@dhcp207-214 ~]# nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 636 `hostname`

Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2015-01-20 17:26 IST
Nmap scan report for dhcp207-214.testrelm.test (10.65.207.214)
Host is up (0.000053s latency).
PORT    STATE SERVICE
636/tcp open  ldapssl
| ssl-enum-ciphers: 
|   TLSv1.2: 
|     ciphers: 
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - strong
|       TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - strong
|     compressors: 
|       NULL
|_  least strength: strong

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.17 seconds
[root@dhcp207-214 ~]#
Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2015-03-05 05:13:19 EST
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0442.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.