From 235363be9391f86bacd7be510d43ebc7b0f1738a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: starlet-dx <15929766099@163.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:21:04 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix CVE-2023-0464 and CVE-2023-0465 --- CVE-2023-0464.patch | 219 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CVE-2023-0465.patch | 51 +++++++++++ nodejs.spec | 9 +- 3 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 CVE-2023-0464.patch create mode 100644 CVE-2023-0465.patch diff --git a/CVE-2023-0464.patch b/CVE-2023-0464.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..368a3b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/CVE-2023-0464.patch @@ -0,0 +1,219 @@ +From 879f7080d7e141f415c79eaa3a8ac4a3dad0348b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Pauli +Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:28:20 +1100 +Subject: [PATCH] x509: excessive resource use verifying policy constraints + +A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions +of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains +that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this +vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers +exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service +(DoS) attack on affected systems. + +Fixes CVE-2023-0464 + +Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz +Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis +(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20569) +--- + deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h | 8 +++++++- + deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c | 12 +++++++++--- + deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- + 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h +index 5daf78de45850..344aa067659cd 100644 +--- a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h ++++ b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h +@@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ struct X509_POLICY_LEVEL_st { + }; + + struct X509_POLICY_TREE_st { ++ /* The number of nodes in the tree */ ++ size_t node_count; ++ /* The maximum number of nodes in the tree */ ++ size_t node_maximum; ++ + /* This is the tree 'level' data */ + X509_POLICY_LEVEL *levels; + int nlevel; +@@ -159,7 +164,8 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *tree_find_sk(STACK_OF(X509_POLICY_NODE) *sk, + X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + X509_POLICY_DATA *data, + X509_POLICY_NODE *parent, +- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree); ++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree, ++ int extra_data); + void policy_node_free(X509_POLICY_NODE *node); + int policy_node_match(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lvl, + const X509_POLICY_NODE *node, const ASN1_OBJECT *oid); +diff --git a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c +index e2d7b15322363..d574fb9d665dc 100644 +--- a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c ++++ b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c +@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_find_node(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + X509_POLICY_DATA *data, + X509_POLICY_NODE *parent, +- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree) ++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree, ++ int extra_data) + { + X509_POLICY_NODE *node; + ++ /* Verify that the tree isn't too large. This mitigates CVE-2023-0464 */ ++ if (tree->node_maximum > 0 && tree->node_count >= tree->node_maximum) ++ return NULL; ++ + node = OPENSSL_zalloc(sizeof(*node)); + if (node == NULL) { + X509V3err(X509V3_F_LEVEL_ADD_NODE, ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE); +@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + } + node->data = data; + node->parent = parent; +- if (level) { ++ if (level != NULL) { + if (OBJ_obj2nid(data->valid_policy) == NID_any_policy) { + if (level->anyPolicy) + goto node_error; +@@ -90,7 +95,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + } + } + +- if (tree) { ++ if (extra_data) { + if (tree->extra_data == NULL) + tree->extra_data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_new_null(); + if (tree->extra_data == NULL){ +@@ -103,6 +108,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level, + } + } + ++ tree->node_count++; + if (parent) + parent->nchild++; + +diff --git a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c +index 6e8322cbc5e38..6c7fd35405000 100644 +--- a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c ++++ b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c +@@ -13,6 +13,18 @@ + + #include "pcy_local.h" + ++/* ++ * If the maximum number of nodes in the policy tree isn't defined, set it to ++ * a generous default of 1000 nodes. ++ * ++ * Defining this to be zero means unlimited policy tree growth which opens the ++ * door on CVE-2023-0464. ++ */ ++ ++#ifndef OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX ++# define OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX 1000 ++#endif ++ + /* + * Enable this to print out the complete policy tree at various point during + * evaluation. +@@ -168,6 +180,9 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs, + return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL; + } + ++ /* Limit the growth of the tree to mitigate CVE-2023-0464 */ ++ tree->node_maximum = OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX; ++ + /* + * http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-6.1.2, figure 3. + * +@@ -184,7 +199,7 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs, + level = tree->levels; + if ((data = policy_data_new(NULL, OBJ_nid2obj(NID_any_policy), 0)) == NULL) + goto bad_tree; +- if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree) == NULL) { ++ if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree, 1) == NULL) { + policy_data_free(data); + goto bad_tree; + } +@@ -243,7 +258,8 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs, + * Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise + */ + static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, +- X509_POLICY_DATA *data) ++ X509_POLICY_DATA *data, ++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree) + { + X509_POLICY_LEVEL *last = curr - 1; + int i, matched = 0; +@@ -253,13 +269,13 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + X509_POLICY_NODE *node = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_value(last->nodes, i); + + if (policy_node_match(last, node, data->valid_policy)) { +- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, NULL) == NULL) ++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + matched = 1; + } + } + if (!matched && last->anyPolicy) { +- if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL) ++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + } + return 1; +@@ -272,7 +288,8 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + * Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise. + */ + static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, +- const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache) ++ const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache, ++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree) + { + int i; + +@@ -280,7 +297,7 @@ static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + X509_POLICY_DATA *data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_value(cache->data, i); + + /* Look for matching nodes in previous level */ +- if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data)) ++ if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data, tree)) + return 0; + } + return 1; +@@ -311,7 +328,7 @@ static int tree_add_unmatched(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + /* Curr may not have anyPolicy */ + data->qualifier_set = cache->anyPolicy->qualifier_set; + data->flags |= POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS; +- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree) == NULL) { ++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 1) == NULL) { + policy_data_free(data); + return 0; + } +@@ -373,7 +390,7 @@ static int tree_link_any(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr, + } + /* Finally add link to anyPolicy */ + if (last->anyPolicy && +- level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL) ++ level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL) + return 0; + return 1; + } +@@ -555,7 +572,7 @@ static int tree_calculate_user_set(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree, + extra->qualifier_set = anyPolicy->data->qualifier_set; + extra->flags = POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS + | POLICY_DATA_FLAG_EXTRA_NODE; +- node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree); ++ node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree, 1); + } + if (!tree->user_policies) { + tree->user_policies = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_new_null(); +@@ -582,7 +599,7 @@ static int tree_evaluate(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree) + + for (i = 1; i < tree->nlevel; i++, curr++) { + cache = policy_cache_set(curr->cert); +- if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache)) ++ if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache, tree)) + return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL; + + if (!(curr->flags & X509_V_FLAG_INHIBIT_ANY) diff --git a/CVE-2023-0465.patch b/CVE-2023-0465.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a92ac7 --- /dev/null +++ b/CVE-2023-0465.patch @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +From b013765abfa80036dc779dd0e50602c57bb3bf95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Matt Caswell +Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:52:55 +0000 +Subject: [PATCH] Ensure that EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY is checked even in leaf + certs + +Even though we check the leaf cert to confirm it is valid, we +later ignored the invalid flag and did not notice that the leaf +cert was bad. + +Fixes: CVE-2023-0465 + +Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau +Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz +(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20588) +--- + deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c | 11 +++++++++-- + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c +index 925fbb5412583..1dfe4f9f31a58 100644 +--- a/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c ++++ b/deps/openssl/openssl/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c +@@ -1649,18 +1649,25 @@ static int check_policy(X509_STORE_CTX *ctx) + } + /* Invalid or inconsistent extensions */ + if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_INVALID) { +- int i; ++ int i, cbcalled = 0; + + /* Locate certificates with bad extensions and notify callback. */ +- for (i = 1; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) { ++ for (i = 0; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) { + X509 *x = sk_X509_value(ctx->chain, i); + + if (!(x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY)) + continue; ++ cbcalled = 1; + if (!verify_cb_cert(ctx, x, i, + X509_V_ERR_INVALID_POLICY_EXTENSION)) + return 0; + } ++ if (!cbcalled) { ++ /* Should not be able to get here */ ++ X509err(X509_F_CHECK_POLICY, ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR); ++ return 0; ++ } ++ /* The callback ignored the error so we return success */ + return 1; + } + if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_FAILURE) { diff --git a/nodejs.spec b/nodejs.spec index 2889b2d..4acab98 100644 --- a/nodejs.spec +++ b/nodejs.spec @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ %bcond_with bootstrap -%global baserelease 5 +%global baserelease 6 %{?!_pkgdocdir:%global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}} %global nodejs_epoch 1 %global nodejs_major 12 @@ -99,6 +99,10 @@ Patch00023: CVE-2023-30590.patch Patch00024: CVE-2022-25881.patch Patch00025: CVE-2023-23920.patch Patch00026: CVE-2023-32559.patch +# https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/879f7080d7e141f415c79eaa3a8ac4a3dad0348b +Patch00027: CVE-2023-0464.patch +# https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b013765abfa80036dc779dd0e50602c57bb3bf95 +Patch00028: CVE-2023-0465.patch BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: zlib-devel @@ -501,6 +505,9 @@ end %{_pkgdocdir}/npm/docs %changelog +* Mon Feb 05 2024 yaoxin - 1:12.22.11-6 +- Fix CVE-2023-0464 and CVE-2023-0465 + * Thu Oct 26 2023 wangkai <13474090681@163.com> - 1:12.22.11-5 - Update CVE-2023-23918.patch for fix nodejs-raw-body,nodejs-istanbul build error -- Gitee