BugTraq
pidgin OTR information leakage Feb 25 2012 04:31PM
Dimitris Glynos (dimitris census-labs com) (1 replies)
Re: pidgin OTR information leakage Feb 27 2012 05:27PM
Jann Horn (jannhorn googlemail com) (1 replies)
Re: [Full-disclosure] pidgin OTR information leakage Feb 27 2012 07:37PM
Michele Orru (antisnatchor gmail com) (1 replies)
Re: [Full-disclosure] pidgin OTR information leakage Feb 27 2012 08:21PM
Rich Pieri (ratinox MIT EDU) (1 replies)
Re: [Full-disclosure] pidgin OTR information leakage Feb 27 2012 09:27PM
Jeffrey Walton (noloader gmail com)
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Rich Pieri <ratinox (at) mit (dot) edu [email concealed]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Michele Orru wrote:
>> I think you didn't understood the content of the advisory.
>> If there are 10 non-root users in an Ubuntu machine for example,
>> if user 1 is using pidgin with OTR compiled with DBUS, then user 2 to 10
>> can see what user 1 pidgin conversation.
>
>
> This is not what the OP or CVE describe:
>
>>> plaintext. This makes it possible for attackers that have gained
>>> user-level access on a host, to listen in on private conversations
>>> associated with the victim account.
>
> Which I read as: if I compromise user1's account then I can snoop user1's DBUS sessions.  It says nothing about me being able to snoop user2's sessions.  The leading phrase about attackers gaining user-level access implies that legitimate users on a system are not a relevant issue.
>
I tend to agree with you, and question if that is in fact true (it may
well be, my apologies in advance). DBUS is on my list of things to
probe, prod, and attatck due to data sharing.

But I'd be really surprised if data was available across distinct user
sessions. Unix/Linux are usually very good a separating processes and
sessions so that data does not comingle.

Jeff

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus