Jonas Meurer: > 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.
Looking more into the core issue[1] of "[GPG] Mails that are not
encrypted look encrypted", it became clear that a lot of applications
(GnuPG[2], Enigmail[3], Mutt[4]) are affected and it's not tracked as
security issue for any of them.
In fact it's tracked for evolution{,-data-server} in the debian security
tracker only because the issue is mentioned in the CVE-2018-15587
bugreport[5].
Besides, I agree with the bug author that "this bug is certainly not in
the same category as a serious security vulnerability, such as a
plaintext leak or a signature spoof"[1].
So I changed my mind and decided to ignore the "encryption spoofing" bug
and only care about "signature spoofing". This means that
evolution-data-server is unaffected and only evolution needs to be fixed.
Cheers
jonas
[1] https://neopg.io/blog/encryption-spoof/
[2] https://dev.gnupg.org/T4000
[3] https://sourceforge.net/p/enigmail/bugs/854/
[4] https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/issues/39
[5] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution/issues/120
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
