1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
From fe9395b9fe1507236eafd147dc0cd4a8c9bf1fe6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: chenhuiying <chenhuiying4@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 17:54:23 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Correctly compare EdiPartyName in GENERAL_NAME_cmp()
If a GENERAL_NAME field contained EdiPartyName data then it was
incorrectly being handled as type "other". This could lead to a
segmentation fault.
Many thanks to David Benjamin from Google for reporting this issue.
CVE-2020-1971
reference: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/f960d81215ebf3f65e03d4d5d857fb9b666d6920
Signed-off-by: chenhuiying <chenhuiying4@huawei.com>
---
.../openssl/crypto/x509v3/v3_genn.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl/crypto/x509v3/v3_genn.c b/CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl/crypto/x509v3/v3_genn.c
index 23e3bc4..23778e2 100644
--- a/CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl/crypto/x509v3/v3_genn.c
+++ b/CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl/crypto/x509v3/v3_genn.c
@@ -57,6 +57,37 @@ GENERAL_NAME *GENERAL_NAME_dup(GENERAL_NAME *a)
(char *)a);
}
+static int edipartyname_cmp(const EDIPARTYNAME *a, const EDIPARTYNAME *b)
+{
+ int res;
+
+ if (a == NULL || b == NULL) {
+ /*
+ * Shouldn't be possible in a valid GENERAL_NAME, but we handle it
+ * anyway. OTHERNAME_cmp treats NULL != NULL so we do the same here
+ */
+ return -1;
+ }
+ if (a->nameAssigner == NULL && b->nameAssigner != NULL)
+ return -1;
+ if (a->nameAssigner != NULL && b->nameAssigner == NULL)
+ return 1;
+ /* If we get here then both have nameAssigner set, or both unset */
+ if (a->nameAssigner != NULL) {
+ res = ASN1_STRING_cmp(a->nameAssigner, b->nameAssigner);
+ if (res != 0)
+ return res;
+ }
+ /*
+ * partyName is required, so these should never be NULL. We treat it in
+ * the same way as the a == NULL || b == NULL case above
+ */
+ if (a->partyName == NULL || b->partyName == NULL)
+ return -1;
+
+ return ASN1_STRING_cmp(a->partyName, b->partyName);
+}
+
/* Returns 0 if they are equal, != 0 otherwise. */
int GENERAL_NAME_cmp(GENERAL_NAME *a, GENERAL_NAME *b)
{
@@ -66,8 +97,11 @@ int GENERAL_NAME_cmp(GENERAL_NAME *a, GENERAL_NAME *b)
return -1;
switch (a->type) {
case GEN_X400:
+ result = ASN1_TYPE_cmp(a->d.x400Address, b->d.x400Address);
+ break;
+
case GEN_EDIPARTY:
- result = ASN1_TYPE_cmp(a->d.other, b->d.other);
+ result = edipartyname_cmp(a->d.ediPartyName, b->d.ediPartyName);
break;
case GEN_OTHERNAME:
@@ -114,8 +148,11 @@ void GENERAL_NAME_set0_value(GENERAL_NAME *a, int type, void *value)
{
switch (type) {
case GEN_X400:
+ a->d.x400Address = value;
+ break;
+
case GEN_EDIPARTY:
- a->d.other = value;
+ a->d.ediPartyName = value;
break;
case GEN_OTHERNAME:
@@ -149,8 +186,10 @@ void *GENERAL_NAME_get0_value(const GENERAL_NAME *a, int *ptype)
*ptype = a->type;
switch (a->type) {
case GEN_X400:
+ return a->d.x400Address;
+
case GEN_EDIPARTY:
- return a->d.other;
+ return a->d.ediPartyName;
case GEN_OTHERNAME:
return a->d.otherName;
--
2.27.0
|
