[iwar] [fc:Beware.New.Red.Hat.Linux.Release,.Expert.Warns]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-23 19:40:26


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3349-1003891203-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16867 invoked by uid 510); 24 Oct 2001 02:39:31 -0000
Received: from n11.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.61) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2001 02:39:31 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3349-1003891203-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.224] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2001 02:40:03 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 24 Oct 2001 02:40:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 50872 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2001 02:40:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 24 Oct 2001 02:40:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2001 02:40:03 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9O2eR031426 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:40:27 -0700
Message-Id: <200110240240.f9O2eR031426@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Beware.New.Red.Hat.Linux.Release,.Expert.Warns]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Beware New Red Hat Linux Release, Expert Warns 
By Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes, 10/23/2001
<a href="http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171419.html">http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171419.html>

The latest online update of Red Hat Linux, a commercial version of the
open-source operating system, could have been tampered with by
attackers, a security expert warned today. 

Copies of Red Hat Linux 7.2 available from some download sites were not
digitally signed by the developer, Red Hat Inc., according to Kurt
Seifried, author of an online book entitled "Linux Administrator's
Security Guide."

"Either Red Hat did not sign these packages, or someone subverted the
distribution process before the files got to various sites," said
Seifried in a security advisory issued today on the VulnWatch mailing
list. 

Red Hat Linux version 7.2, also known by its code name, "Enigma," was
released Tuesday. 

While Red Hat Linux can be purchased from the vendor on CD-ROM, many
users download the software for free from the company's Web site or from
numerous mirror sites around the world. 

According to Seifried, Red Hat ordinarily uses an authentication
technology known as GnuPG to sign the various files or "packages" that
comprise its distribution of Linux so that users can verify that the
downloaded files were not modified. 

Without such signatures, "it becomes trivial for an attacker to replace
packages on a distribution site with no one being able to easily verify
that they have been subverted," said Seifried's advisory.  A Red Hat
spokesperson said the company was studying the security report. 

In addition to using GnuPG, Red Hat enables users to confirm the
authenticity of downloaded software through a hashing technology known
as an MD5 checksum. 

Matthias Saou, operator of a unofficial Red Hat distribution and
discussion site, FreshRPMs.net, said the MD5 checksums of Red Hat 7.2
files he obtained two weeks ago from the vendor's server checked out. 
"I really don't think there's any problem with the files Red Hat put
out," said Saou, who added that Seifried's security advisory was missing
important technical details. 

According to Seifried, the Red Hat 7.2 packages that failed GnuPG
verification included rpmdb-redhat and redhat-release.  All of the files
in the operating system's previous release, Red Hat Linux 7.1, were
correctly signed with the Red Hat GnuPG security key, according to
Seifried. 

In a chapter of his security guide that deals with installing Linux,
Seifried warned that acquiring the operating system from an unverified
source "could potentially end up with an installation that has backdoors
or other security issues."

Seifried's advisory on Red Hat Linux 7.2 is archived here: <a
href="http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/vulnwatch/2001-q4/0019.html">http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/vulnwatch/2001-q4/0019.html>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:56 PST