Bug 623483 (CVE-2010-2939) - CVE-2010-2939 openssl: double-free vulnerability in ssl3_get_key_exchange()
Summary: CVE-2010-2939 openssl: double-free vulnerability in ssl3_get_key_exchange()
Alias: CVE-2010-2939
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-08-11 21:41 UTC by Vincent Danen
Modified: 2021-02-24 22:38 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-08-12 16:34:07 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Vincent Danen 2010-08-11 21:41:54 UTC
George Guninski reported [1] a double-free flaw in openssl's client implementation that could lead to a crash when ECDH is used.  It was reported against 1.0.0a but the code being patched [2] to correct the flaw has also been identified in 0.9.8 [3].

[1] http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=128118163216952&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=128128256314328&w=2
[3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.oss.general/3298

Comment 1 Vincent Danen 2010-08-11 21:44:01 UTC
I'm not 100% sure of the impact here as it looks like it might just be in the openssl client.  I don't know if this code is used by other clients linked to the openssl libraries or not, so at this point cannot say if other applications are impacted by this.

Comment 2 Tomas Mraz 2010-08-11 22:10:24 UTC
Except this code is not compiled in on our openssl - no ECC support there.

Comment 3 Vincent Danen 2010-08-12 04:03:30 UTC
ECC or ECDH?  So where this problem falls, we don't compile that support into any version of openssl we provide?

Comment 4 Tomas Mraz 2010-08-12 07:20:08 UTC
Yes, it's in #ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ECDH. And the ECDH is not even in the source tarball due to patent concerns with ECC.

Comment 6 Vincent Danen 2010-08-12 16:34:07 UTC

This issue did not affect the versions of openssl as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, or 5 as they did not include support for ECDH.

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