Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Security Flaw Discovered in GPG 151

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the enemy-within dept.
WeLikeRoy writes "A serious problem in the use of GPG to verify digital signatures has been discovered, which also affects the use of gpg in email. It is possible for an attacker to take any signed message and inject extra arbitrary data without affecting the signed status of the message. Depending on how gpg is invoked, it may be possible to output just faked data as several variants of this attack have been discovered. All versions of gnupg prior to 1.4.2.2 are affected, and it is thus recommended to update GnuPG as soon as possible to version 1.4.2.2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Security Flaw Discovered in GPG

Comments Filter:
  • by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @10:36PM (#14888083) Homepage Journal
    remember how many versions of OpenSSH we have? And why do you think new versions were released? And why should GPG be any different?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09, 2006 @11:10PM (#14888230)
    go take a class on cryptography
  • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slavemowgli (585321) on Friday March 10, 2006 @12:42AM (#14888632) Homepage

    It DOES mean that you cannot trust e-mail for commercially sensitive transactions, but nobody should be trusting e-mail for that anyway.

    I don't mean this to come across as flamebait, but that's one of the stupidest comments I've read on Slashdot today. You could just as well - and with the same justification - say that telephones shouldn't be used for conducting business (all business consists of commercially sensitive transactions, mind you), or that letters shouldn't be used, that the postal services can't be trusted, that pens and paper shouldn't be used for writing down contracts, and so on.

    All these things, just like email and just like GPG, are tools. Tools, like everything, are fundamentally insecure, at least theoretically; there is no absolute security. But you can minimise risks by using tools the right way, by making sure that malfunctions don't lead to a cascade of further malfunctions, and - maybe most importantly - by *realising* and *keeping in mind* that nothing is ever perfectly secure. If you do that, you can use email for sensitive things just like you can use the phone network or the postal services or direct face-to-face communication; you merely have to be aware of the risks and how to manage/minimise them.

    Panicking and crying "email is never secure!" isn't going to get you anywhere, really. You're just limiting yourself to other means of communication which are basically just as secure or insecure as email is, and given that statement, chances are you haven't really understood how security works, anyway, so you're probably less secure no matter what you do.

  • by bazald (886779) <bazaldNO@SPAMzenipex.com> on Friday March 10, 2006 @01:26AM (#14888759) Homepage
    ...as it is already designed to tell you precisely what part of the e-mail is signed. Is there a more convenient way to handle GPG for e-mail than enigmail anyway?
  • Re:Whew! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:30AM (#14889677)
    Publish your address in a reply to this post, and I'm sure you'll get plenty.
  • by xquark (649804) on Friday March 10, 2006 @09:07AM (#14889965) Homepage
    yeah you did, the signing would also include the part " -- Boss" within the signature,
    ergo the injection you proposed would not be valid and hence would be rejected
    by the signature verification process.

    try and add something before or after the actual e-mail message and see how much sense
    it would make to someone reading it...

    Arash
  • Re:Whew! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ThinkingInBinary (899485) <thinkinginbinary@gma i l .com> on Friday March 10, 2006 @10:39AM (#14890440) Homepage

    If you had published your email, I'm sure you'd have 500 encrypted "Hello, world!" emails from other Slashdot readers.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Friday March 10, 2006 @02:46PM (#14892494)

    But if I understood correctly, GPG doesn't include the headers in the signature; so even without this bug, you could just change the subject to refer to Foo Bar.

    Tricky business, security is :(.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Working...