On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:20:28AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:47:03AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not the fault of this patch, but surely this bit in pgcrypto's
>> pad_eme_pkcs1_v15()
>>
>> if (!pg_strong_random((char *) p, 1))
>> {
>> px_memset(buf, 0, res_len);
>> px_free(buf);
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> is insane, because the "break" makes it fall into code that will continue
>> to scribble on "buf". I think the "break" needs to be "return
>> PXE_NO_RANDOM", and probably we'd better back-patch that as a bug fix.
>> (I'm also failing to see the point of that px_memset before freeing the
>> buffer --- at this point, it contains no sensitive data, surely.)
>
> Good catch. As far as I understand this code, the message is not
> included yet and random bytes are just added to avoid having 0 in the
> padding. So I agree that the memset is not really meaningful to
> have on the whole buffer. I can take care of that as well, and of
> course you get the credits. If you want to commit and back-patch the
> fix yourself, please feel free to do so.I have fixed this one and back-patched down to 10. In what has been committed I have kept the memset which is a logic present since e94dd6a back from 2005. On my second lookup, the logic is correct without it, still it felt safer to keep it. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
