oss-security September 2010 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > oss-security archives
oss-security: Re: [oss-security] CVE Request -- EncFS / fuse-enc

Re: [oss-security] CVE Request -- EncFS / fuse-encfs [three ids] -- Multiple Vulnerabilities in EncFS

From: Josh Bressers <bressers_at_nospam>
Date: Tue Sep 07 2010 - 19:05:38 GMT
To: oss-security@lists.openwall.com

Here goes:

CVE-2010-3073 encfs Only 32 bit of file IV used
CVE-2010-3074 encfs Watermarking attack
CVE-2010-3075 encfs Last block with single byte is insecure"

Thanks

-- JB ----- "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov@redhat.com> wrote: > Hello Steve, vendors, > > Micha Riser reported: > [A] > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/0316.html > > three security flaws in EncFS encrypted filesystem (more from [A]): > > "A security analysis of EncFS has revealed multiple vulnerabilities: > (1) Only 32 bit of file IV used > (2) Watermarking attack > (3) Last block with single byte is insecure" > > References: > [B] http://www.arg0.net/encfs > [C] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335938 > [D] > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-08/att-0316/watermark-attack-encfs.tar.gz > [E] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630460 > > > Solutions / patches information: > ================================ > > * for issue (1) -- seems it wasn't fixed / isn't possible to > fix without breaking backward compatibility. More from [B]: > > "The old IV setup is kept for backwards compatibility." > > * for issue (2) -- EncFS upstream has released a fix for the issue: > [F] http://code.google.com/p/encfs/source/detail?r=59 > > Valient, could you please confirm, the above referenced [F] patch, > is the correct one to address the watermarking attack issue? > > * for issue (3) -- not sure about patch status (included in [F] too?) > > Steve, could you allocate CVE ids for these flaws? > > Thanks && Regards, Jan. > -- > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team