mail-mta/exim-4.93.0.4-r1: revbump for CVE-2020-12783

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/722484
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.89, Repoman-2.3.20
Signed-off-by: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org>

diff --git a/mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4.ebuild b/mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4-r1.ebuild
similarity index 99%
rename from mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4.ebuild
rename to mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4-r1.ebuild
index ae3fd4019c8bb2387260f552fae660388763ab25..714de0e7045cd17b86fc9e9cfce3fa3f43d75ca4 100644 (file)
--- a/mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4.ebuild
+++ b/mail-mta/exim/exim-4.93.0.4-r1.ebuild
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ src_prepare() {
        eapply     "${FILESDIR}"/exim-4.69-r1.27021.patch
        eapply     "${FILESDIR}"/exim-4.93-localscan_dlopen.patch
        eapply -p2 "${FILESDIR}"/exim-4.93-radius.patch # 720364
+       eapply     "${FILESDIR}"/exim-4.93-CVE-2020-12783.patch # 722484
 
        if use maildir ; then
                eapply "${FILESDIR}"/exim-4.20-maildir.patch

diff --git a/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.93-CVE-2020-12783.patch b/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.93-CVE-2020-12783.patch
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..c957d55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/mail-mta/exim/files/exim-4.93-CVE-2020-12783.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+auths/spa: fix for CVE-2020-12783
+
+This is a combined patch of git commits:
+
+57aa14b216432be381b6295c312065b2fd034f86
+a04174dc2a84ae1008c23b6a7109e7fa3fb7b8b0
+
+leaving out whitespace noise for a smaller patch
+and made it apply to the 4.93 release
+
+modified paths because Exim dists differ in layout from the git repo
+
+Fix SPA authenticator, checking client-supplied data before using it.  Bug 2571
+Rework SPA fix to avoid overflows.  Bug 2571
+
+
+--- a/src/auths/auth-spa.c
++++ b/src/auths/auth-spa.c
+@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ int
+ /* base 64 to raw bytes in quasi-big-endian order, returning count of bytes */
+ {
+   int len = 0;
+-  register uschar digit1, digit2, digit3, digit4;
++  uschar digit1, digit2, digit3, digit4;
+ 
+   if (in[0] == '+' && in[1] == ' ')
+     in += 2;
+--- a/src/auths/spa.c
++++ b/src/auths/spa.c
+@@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ SPAAuthChallenge challenge;
+ SPAAuthResponse  response;
+ SPAAuthResponse  *responseptr = &response;
+ uschar msgbuf[2048];
+-uschar *clearpass;
++uschar *clearpass, *s;
++unsigned off;
+ 
+ /* send a 334, MS Exchange style, and grab the client's request,
+ unless we already have it via an initial response. */
+@@ -194,9 +195,19 @@ that causes failure if the size of msgbuf is exceeded. ****/
+ 
+   {
+   int i;
+-  char *p = ((char*)responseptr) + IVAL(&responseptr->uUser.offset,0);
++  char * p;
+   int len = SVAL(&responseptr->uUser.len,0)/2;
+ 
++  if (  (off = IVAL(&responseptr->uUser.offset,0)) >= sizeof(SPAAuthResponse)
++     || len >= sizeof(responseptr->buffer)/2
++     || (p = (CS responseptr) + off) + len*2 >= CS (responseptr+1)
++     )
++    {
++    DEBUG(D_auth)
++      debug_printf("auth_spa_server(): bad uUser spec in response\n");
++    return FAIL;
++    }
++
+   if (len + 1 >= sizeof(msgbuf)) return FAIL;
+   for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
+     {
+@@ -245,12 +256,16 @@ spa_smb_nt_encrypt(clearpass, challenge.challengeData, ntRespData);
+ 
+ /* compare NT hash (LM may not be available) */
+ 
+-if (memcmp(ntRespData,
+-      ((unsigned char*)responseptr)+IVAL(&responseptr->ntResponse.offset,0),
+-      24) == 0)
+-  /* success. we have a winner. */
+-  {
++off = IVAL(&responseptr->ntResponse.offset,0);
++if (off >= sizeof(SPAAuthResponse) - 24)
++  {
++  DEBUG(D_auth)
++    debug_printf("auth_spa_server(): bad ntRespData spec in response\n");
++  return FAIL;
++  }
++s = (US responseptr) + off;
++
++if (memcmp(ntRespData, s, 24) == 0)
+   return auth_check_serv_cond(ablock);
+-  }
+ 
+   /* Expand server_condition as an authorization check (PH) */