Debian: DSA-3962-1: strongswan security update

    Date03 Sep 2017
    CategoryDebian
    58
    Posted ByLinuxSecurity Advisories
    A denial of service vulnerability was identified in strongSwan, an IKE/IPsec suite, using Google's OSS-Fuzz fuzzing project. The gmp plugin in strongSwan had insufficient input validation when verifying
    
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Debian Security Advisory DSA-3962-1                   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    https://www.debian.org/security/                        Yves-Alexis Perez
    September 03, 2017                    https://www.debian.org/security/faq
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Package        : strongswan
    CVE ID         : CVE-2017-11185
    Debian Bug     : 872155
    
    A denial of service vulnerability was identified in strongSwan, an IKE/IPsec
    suite, using Google's OSS-Fuzz fuzzing project.
    
    The gmp plugin in strongSwan had insufficient input validation when verifying
    RSA signatures. This coding error could lead to a null pointer dereference,
    leading to process crash.
    
    For the oldstable distribution (jessie), this problem has been fixed
    in version 5.2.1-6+deb8u5.
    
    For the stable distribution (stretch), this problem has been fixed in
    version 5.5.1-4+deb9u1.
    
    For the testing distribution (buster), this problem has been fixed
    in version 5.6.0-1.
    
    For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in
    version 5.6.0-1.
    
    We recommend that you upgrade your strongswan packages.
    
    Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply
    these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
    found at: https://www.debian.org/security/
    
    Mailing list: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    
    You are not authorised to post comments.

    Comments powered by CComment

    LinuxSecurity Poll

    What do you think of the articles on LinuxSecurity?

    No answer selected. Please try again.
    Please select either existing option or enter your own, however not both.
    Please select minimum 0 answer(s) and maximum 3 answer(s).
    /main-polls/24-what-do-you-think-of-the-quality-of-the-articles-on-linuxsecurity?task=poll.vote&format=json
    24
    radio
    [{"id":"87","title":"Excellent, don't change a thing!","votes":"25","type":"x","order":"1","pct":54.35,"resources":[]},{"id":"88","title":"Should be more technical","votes":"5","type":"x","order":"2","pct":10.87,"resources":[]},{"id":"89","title":"Should include more HOWTOs","votes":"16","type":"x","order":"3","pct":34.78,"resources":[]}]["#ff5b00","#4ac0f2","#b80028","#eef66c","#60bb22","#b96a9a","#62c2cc"]["rgba(255,91,0,0.7)","rgba(74,192,242,0.7)","rgba(184,0,40,0.7)","rgba(238,246,108,0.7)","rgba(96,187,34,0.7)","rgba(185,106,154,0.7)","rgba(98,194,204,0.7)"]350
    bottom200

    We use cookies to provide and improve our services. By using our site, you consent to our Cookie Policy.