[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[SECURITY] [DSA 2860-1] parcimonie security update



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian Security Advisory DSA-2860-1                   security@debian.org
http://www.debian.org/security/                      Salvatore Bonaccorso
February 11, 2014                      http://www.debian.org/security/faq
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Package        : parcimonie
Vulnerability  : information disclosure
CVE ID         : CVE-2014-1921
Debian Bug     : 738134

Holger Levsen discovered that parcimonie, a privacy-friendly helper to
refresh a GnuPG keyring, is affected by a design problem that undermines
the usefulness of this piece of software in the intended threat model.

When using parcimonie with a large keyring (1000 public keys or more),
it would always sleep exactly ten minutes between two key fetches. This
can probably be used by an adversary who can watch enough key fetches to
correlate multiple key fetches with each other, which is what parcimonie
aims at protecting against. Smaller keyrings are affected to a smaller
degree. This problem is slightly mitigated when using a HKP(s) pool as
the configured GnuPG keyserver.

For the stable distribution (wheezy), this problem has been fixed in
version 0.7.1-1+deb7u1.

For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in
version 0.8.1-1.

We recommend that you upgrade your parcimonie packages.

Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply
these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
found at: http://www.debian.org/security/

Mailing list: debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=aX8i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: