This service will be undergoing maintenance at 00:00 UTC, 2016-08-01. It is expected to last about 1 hours
Bug 185355 - CVE-2006-0049, CVE-2006-0455 GnuPG signature verification bugs
CVE-2006-0049, CVE-2006-0455 GnuPG signature verification bugs
Product: Fedora Legacy
Classification: Retired
Component: gnupg (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Fedora Legacy Bugs
LEGACY, rh73, rh90, 1, 2, 3
: Security
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-03-13 17:48 EST by Pavel Kankovsky
Modified: 2007-04-18 13:39 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-05-12 20:52:39 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 183484 None None None Never
Red Hat Bugzilla 184556 None None None Never

  None (edit)
Description Pavel Kankovsky 2006-03-13 17:48:57 EST
From the official GnuPG advisory:
"Signature verification of non-detached signatures may give a positive result
but when extracting the signed data, this data may be prepended or appended with
extra data not covered by the signature.  Thus it is possible for an attacker to
take any signed message and inject extra arbitrary data."

All versions < are affected. This means all versions maintained by FL.
Debian has got a fix for 1.0.6 (*)--it might work for 7.3, and 1.4.1 (+). I am
not aware of any fixes for 1.2.x (as found in RH9 and FC1-3 afaict) right now.


BTW: When we're working on it, we should look at
as well.
Comment 1 Jeff Sheltren 2006-03-15 12:32:01 EST
I'm inclined to follow what redhat did for RHEL and patch CVE-2006-0049 and
CVE-2006-0455 (the first gnupg announce link you posted).  The 2nd gnupg
announce link you posted seems to be more theoretical than anything - I think we
can safely put off that patch unless there are any objections?

Also, can somebody please add CVE-2006-0455 to the Summary?
Comment 2 Pavel Kankovsky 2006-03-15 15:46:21 EST
1. changed summary to cover both CVE's

2. I agree "2005q1/000191.html" is mostly theoretical, OTOH it can affect some
real uses of GPG and the patch is trivial (three one-liners)

3. RH has published its fixes for both issues:
with patches for 1.0.7, 1.2.1 and 1.2.6
Comment 3 Jeff Sheltren 2006-03-15 18:20:24 EST
Thanks.  I'm working on some updated packages.  I built updates for RH7.3 and
RH9 using the patches from RHEL, but it looks like the CVE-2006-0049 patch will
need a bit of massaging to work with the fc 1/2/3 packages.  I'll post them once
they're complete.

I'll take a look at the patch for the 000191.html link.
Comment 4 Donald Maner 2006-03-15 21:44:33 EST
Whoops, I shoulda spoken up sooner.  I didn't include "2005q1/000191.html"
because I thought we were trying to stick to RHEL and other vendor tested
patches as much as possible...

Hash: SHA1

I have created the following RPMs for CVE-2006-0049 and CVE-2006-0455:






Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

Comment 5 Pekka Savola 2006-03-16 01:11:52 EST
Is there consensus yet whether Don's approach is "good enough" ?

If yes, I'll go ahead and do PUBLISH QA.  Speak up within a day...
Comment 6 David Eisenstein 2006-03-16 06:07:31 EST
Regarding "2005q1/000191.html",
From <>:

"What does this discovery mean to OpenPGP users?

"If you use an OpenPGP-based program such as PGP® solutions, Gnu Privacy Guard,
or Hushmail to encrypt and decrypt emails or files, Mister's and Zuccherato's
discovery does not affect you. ...

"We know of no real-world application that is affected by this type of attack.
It is an attack that requires the active participation of someone who holds the
actual key required to decrypt a message. Thus, it is not something you are
likely to see.

"If, however, you are using an OpenPGP-based program that is part of an
automated system that takes encrypted data, decrypts the data block, and gives
feedback to the submitter about whether the data block was properly decrypted,
then you may be affected. Again, we know of no real-world systems that are
affected, but we can mentally construct applications that *might* be affected."

Basing an opinion on the above, my thought is it is unlikely that a fix to the
"2005q1/000191.html" issue will be useful to our users.  But I am no
cryptography expert.

So I vote "good enough."
Comment 7 Jeff Sheltren 2006-03-16 17:11:01 EST
I second that "good enough" vote.  Let's stick to just what RHEL patched.
Comment 8 Pekka Savola 2006-03-17 04:50:05 EST
Hash: SHA1
QA w/
 - source integrity good
 - spec file changes minimal
 - patches either come directly from RHEL or are derivations of those
ae330358d3de07293d38c03d3be78cfbab3c8e11  gnupg-1.0.7-13.1.legacy.src.rpm
11c42d52e77427ead851555229d5f6374fa7babb  gnupg-1.2.1-9.1.legacy.src.rpm
3ed633f01d7bab853001101e95e9d4d59ca1dc94  gnupg-1.2.3-2.1.legacy.src.rpm
033ddc97fa6b7c81859546ddd69f003eff42bde3  gnupg-1.2.4-2.2.legacy.src.rpm
e07b00615272cbf14dac9dce10837fc7f88ca3a6  gnupg-1.2.7-1.1.legacy.src.rpm
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment 9 Marc Deslauriers 2006-03-28 19:33:40 EST
Packages were pushed to updates-testing
Comment 10 Tom Yates 2006-03-30 08:17:11 EST
Hash: SHA1

b551dcbc9739ca6af6ca175c61709d5a4209fee6  gnupg-1.2.1-9.2.legacy.i386.rpm

installs OK.  key generation, encryption, decryption, signing and
verification all work OK.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

Comment 11 Pekka Savola 2006-03-30 10:25:30 EST
I looked at RHL73 binary with, and saw a couple of things
which seemed troubling:

..lots of pulled in new dependencies?


..I wonder if something would break due to removal of this dependency?

--rw-r--r-- root    root            16212 /usr/share/info/
+-rw-r--r-- root    root               29 /usr/share/info/

.. gpg info page seems to be missing/truncated?

Comment 12 Marc Deslauriers 2006-03-30 18:45:34 EST
I can't figure out how the original rh73 gnupg package was built without pulling
in those dependencies. As soon as I add openldap-devel to get ldap support built
in, those come with it. Any ideas?

The perl dependency is normal. It's a side-effect of removing the perl script
from gnupg. I don't think anything else in gnupg uses perl besides the script
that was removed.

Man page does look broken. I'll have to take a look at it.
Comment 13 Pekka Savola 2006-03-31 00:15:32 EST
It seems /usr/bin/gpgkeys_ldap had dependency to those but other binaries
didn't, so it seems the deps weren't being pulled in properly in the past for
whatever reason.
Comment 14 Marc Deslauriers 2006-04-01 16:37:40 EST
Updated packages for rh73 were pushed to updates testing.
Comment 15 Pekka Savola 2006-04-02 12:34:57 EDT
"It's a side-effect of removing the perl script
from gnupg."

==> I note that at least on RHL73 it was not removed (but was indeed removed on
RHL9); was this intentional?

In case it should remain, here's my VERIFY vote.

Hash: SHA1

QA for RHL73 (gnupg-1.0.7-13.3.legacy.i386.rpm).  Signature OK, upgrades OK.
Verification and signing works fine.

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


Comment 16 Marc Deslauriers 2006-04-02 23:39:26 EDT
humm...something is odd...I thought the missing perl file was part of the
security fix, but it doesn't appear so. I'll have to look into this.
Comment 17 Pekka Savola 2006-04-17 12:30:59 EDT
Any update on checking the perl file..?
Comment 18 Pavel Kankovsky 2006-04-20 12:33:42 EDT
It appears the last RH update for 7.3 (gnupg-1.0.7-7) was built with a newer RPM
than present in 7.3. In particular, RPM the update in question was built with
had the following two features:

1. its find-requires did not use ldd to collect dependencies on dynamic
libraries (only objdump reporting direct dependencies; ldd reports full
transitive closure)

2. it had a working (its non-executable in 7.3)

AFAICT, it looked more like RPM in 9 than RPM in 7.3.
Comment 19 Pekka Savola 2006-05-06 02:23:06 EDT
So, is the RHL73 rpm we have now something we can release, or are changes required?
Comment 20 Marc Deslauriers 2006-05-06 09:37:38 EDT
It should be good to go.
Comment 21 Pekka Savola 2006-05-06 09:44:16 EDT
Comment 22 Marc Deslauriers 2006-05-12 20:52:39 EDT
Packages were released to updates.
Comment 23 David Eisenstein 2006-05-26 08:57:17 EDT
Although this bug is already closed, I'm putting in an unofficial vote
VERIFY+ FC1, as the released packages have been working for me for over a
week with nary a problem.

Good work, Donald!  :-)   (And Marc and Pekka!)  :)

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