[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       oss-security
Subject:    Re: [oss-security] KMail/KIO POP3 SSL MITM Flaw
From:       Richard Moore <rich () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-06-22 20:47:50
Message-ID: CAMp7mVussXgzDsiWun-qgwrf=QGM1R7LNNg2WbF3zCyFL0i3xQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


I believe it was introduced in kdelibs 4.10.95, but David will know for
sure.

Cheers

Rich.



On 22 June 2014 18:54, Nick Boyce <nick.boyce@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 June 2014 21:07, Richard Moore <rich@kde.org> wrote:
>
> > Title:          KMail/KIO POP3 SSL MITM Flaw
> > CVE:            CVE-2014-3494
> > Versions:       kdelibs 4.10.95 to 4.13.2
> [...]
> > The POP3 kioslave used by kmail will accept invalid
> > certificates without presenting a dialog to the user due
> > a bug that leads to an inability to display the dialog
> > combined with an error in the way the result is checked.
> [...]
> > This flaw allows an active attacker to perform MITM
> > attacks against the ioslave which could result in the
> > leakage of sensitive data such as the authentication
> > details and the contents of emails.
>
> Is there anything you can add as to how long this bug has been in the
> codebase ?  In particular, is the Kmail in Debian 'oldstable' systems
> affected (squeeze/kdelibs 4.4.5), or that in Debian 'stable' systems
> (wheezy/kdelibs 4.8.4) ?
>
> I'm not sure whether to interpret the 'Versions' line in the advisory
> as "bug was introduced at kdelibs 4.10.95" - and there is no further
> information on the CVE at Mitre [1], or in the Debian bug [2]; there
> appears to be no relevant bug at bugs.kde.org (a search for the CVE,
> or any of the keywords "kdelibs pop3 ssl kioslave" returns nothing
> relevant).
>
> There is an IBM ISS report [3] which implies the bug affects at least
> kdelibs 4.6.x ....
>
> [1] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-3494
> [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752052
> [3] http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/93875
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]