Hello, The last days, I spent quite some hours on backporting and debugging patches for CVE-2018-15587 (Signature Spoofing in PGP encrypted email) to evolution and evolution-data-server packages for Jessie LTS.
One problem is that the scope of CVE-2018-15587 is a bit blurry. While
the CVE description speaks specifically about the possibility to craft
emails in a way that they spuriously appear to be *signed* - a
vulnerability that got revealed in the aftermath of SigSpoof - the
corresponding bugreports link to several related OpenPGP weaknesses in
evolution{-data-server}.
E.g., our security tracker additionally links[1] to the upstream bugs
"[GPG] Mails that are not encrypted look encrypted"[2] and "Sometimes
fails to properly decrypt large GPG encrypted messages"[3].
[1] https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2018-15587
[2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/issues/3
[3] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/issues/75
I now have a working version of evolution - at least I tested it
thoroughly. It has both the signature spoofing and encryption spoofing
bugs fixed. You can find amd64 builds of the packages in my personal
repository[4], further testing much appreciated.
[4] https://people.debian.org/~mejo/debian/jessie-security/
With evolution-data-server, the situation is slightly more complicated.
I'm still debugging issues with the patches[5] that are supposed to fix
the "[GPG] Mails that are not encrypted look encrypted" issue.
[5] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/commit/93306a29
and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/commit/accb0e24
My question: do you agree that these fixes are within the scope of
CVE-2018-15587? If so, then I will continue working on the issue and
upload both of evolution and evolution-data-server in a batch once I got
the issues sorted out.
Another option would be to upload evolution to jessie-security right now
and decide that evolution-data-server is not affected by CVE-2018-15587,
since it's only prone to "encrypted message spoofing", not to "signature
spoofing". But in my eyes, that would be a sham.
Another problem is that I'm already five hours over my allocated LTS
time for April. I'm fine with doing some extra volunteer work on the
issue though.
Cheers
jonas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
