Bug 962051 (CVE-2016-0737) - VUL-0: CVE-2016-0737, CVE-2016-0738: openstack-swift: Swift proxy-server DoS through Large Object
Summary: VUL-0: CVE-2016-0737, CVE-2016-0738: openstack-swift: Swift proxy-server DoS ...
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: CVE-2016-0737
Product: SUSE Security Incidents
Classification: Novell Products
Component: Incidents (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Other
: P5 - None : Normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Security Team bot
QA Contact: Security Team bot
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-01-15 09:13 UTC by Johannes Segitz
Modified: 2016-01-29 10:59 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Found By: ---
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Johannes Segitz 2016-01-15 09:13:50 UTC
Title: Swift proxy-server DoS through Large Object
Reporter: Romain LE DISEZ (OVH), Ã\226rjan Persson (Kiliaro)
Products: Swift
Affects: CVE-2016-0737: >=2.2.1 <= 2.3.0
         CVE-2016-0738: >=2.2.1 <= 2.3.0, >= 2.4.0 <= 2.5.0

Description:
Romain LE DISEZ from OVH and Ã\226rjan Persson from Kiliaro independently
reported two vulnerabilities in Swift Large Object. By repeatedly
requesting and interrupting connections to a Large Object (Dynamic or
Static) URL, a remote attacker may exhausts Swift proxy-server
resources, potentially resulting in a denial of service. Note that there
are two distinct bugs that can exhaust proxy resources, one for client
connection (client to proxy CVE-2016-0737), one for servers connection
(proxy to server CVE-2016-0738). All Swift setups are affected.

Proposed patch:
See attached patches for CVE-2016-0738. Unless a flaw is discovered in
them, these patches will be merged to master/mitaka, stable/liberty and
stable/kilo on the public disclosure date.
For CVE-2016-0737, the stable/kilo patch is available here:
- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/217750/

CVE: CVE-2016-0737, CVE-2016-0738

CRD: 2016-01-20 1500 UTC
Comment 1 Johannes Segitz 2016-01-15 09:14:39 UTC
We're not affected, bug opened just for reference
Comment 2 Johannes Segitz 2016-01-29 10:59:15 UTC
public