Indeed, there is an "extra" change which I saw fit to include after
reviewing the change with care.

Replicating the issue directly involves using the openssl C APIs because
higher-level interfaces like the command-line ones prevent calling the
affected code in a way that will trigger the issue. This significantly
increases the effort required to write the testcase. I don't think
upstream wrote one either although that is their habit nowadays but it's
been some time and I will have to look at it again.

Removing (b) wouldn't cause a security issue and it seems (a) is enough
to fix the functional issue that has been reported. On the other hand
this is a diff from current upstream versions, it will require new tests
and the (a+b) changes have seen a lot of use worlwide by now. When
including (b), I knew that it was probably not strictly required and I'm
fine with removing it even though I would prefer to keep it for the
above reasons.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to openssl in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1994165

Title:
  CMS_final: do not ignore CMS_dataFinal result

Status in openssl package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in openssl source package in Jammy:
  In Progress
Status in openssl source package in Kinetic:
  Won't Fix
Status in openssl source package in Lunar:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  === SRU information ===
  [Meta]
  This bug is part of a series of three bugs for a single SRU.
  The "central" bug with the global information and debdiff is 
http://pad.lv/2033422

  [Impact]
  S/MIME signature can fail silently
  The commit by upstream propagates the return code of some functions rather 
than ignore it.

  [Test plan]
  This issue is not very simple to reproduce because "openssl cms" cannot be 
used to do so. This has to be done with the openssl API instead.
  At least the bug reportere here and the one on openssl's bug tracker have 
confirmed the patch solves the issue. Additionally, the bug reporter here has 
tested the PPA that contains the patche and validated it. Finally, I read 
through the patch attentively.

  [Where problems could occur]
  At this point it is unlikely an error would appear. The openssl bug tracker 
mentions nothing related to this patch which landed more than a year ago. The 
patch is simple and doesn't change the code logic.

  [Patches]
  The patches come directly from upstream and apply cleanly.

  https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/18876

  * 
https://git.launchpad.net/~adrien-n/ubuntu/+source/openssl/tree/debian/patches/jammy-sru-0001-REGRESSION-CMS_final-do-not-ignore-CMS_dataFinal-res.patch?h=jammy-sru&id=04ef023920ab08fba214817523fba897527dfff0
  * 
https://git.launchpad.net/~adrien-n/ubuntu/+source/openssl/tree/debian/patches/jammy-sru-0002-Handle-SMIME_crlf_copy-return-code.patch?h=jammy-sru&id=04ef023920ab08fba214817523fba897527dfff0

  === Original description ===

  https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/18876

  The CMS_dataFinal result is important as signature may fail, however, it
  is ignored while returning success from CMS_final.

  Please add this fix to The openssl 3.0.2 "Jammy Jellyfish (supported)"

  Thanks

  Upstream commit:

  ```
  commit 67c0460b89cc1b0644a1a59af78284dfd8d720af
  Author: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.bar...@gmail.com>
  Date:   Tue Jul 26 15:17:06 2022 +0300

      Handle SMIME_crlf_copy return code

      Currently the SMIME_crlf_copy result is ignored in all usages. It does
      return failure when memory allocation fails.

      This patch handles the SMIME_crlf_copy return code in all
  occurrences.

      Signed-off-by: Alon Bar-Lev <alon.bar...@gmail.com>

      Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <to...@openssl.org>
      Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pa...@openssl.org>
      Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <hlan...@openssl.org>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/18876)
  ```

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/1994165/+subscriptions


-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to     : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to