ghsa-x9w5-v3q2-3rhw
Vulnerability from github
Summary
An upper bound check issue in dsaVerify
function allows an attacker to construct signatures that can be successfully verified by any public key, thus leading to a signature forgery attack.
Details
In dsaVerify
function, it checks whether the value of the signature is legal by calling function checkValue
, namely, whether r
and s
are both in the interval [1, q - 1]
. However, the second line of the checkValue
function wrongly checks the upper bound of the passed parameters, since the value of b.cmp(q)
can only be 0
, 1
and -1
, and it can never be greater than q
.
In this way, although the values of s
cannot be 0
, an attacker can achieve the same effect as zero by setting its value to q
, and then send (r, s) = (1, q)
to pass the verification of any public key.
Impact
All places in this project that involve DSA verification of user-input signatures will be affected by this vulnerability.
Fix PR:
Since the temporary private fork was deleted, here's a webarchive of the PR discussion and diff pages: PR webarchive.zip
{ "affected": [ { "database_specific": { "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.2.1" }, "ecosystem_specific": { "affected_functions": [ "(browserify-sign).Verify" ] }, "package": { "ecosystem": "npm", "name": "browserify-sign" }, "ranges": [ { "events": [ { "introduced": "2.6.0" }, { "fixed": "4.2.2" } ], "type": "ECOSYSTEM" } ] } ], "aliases": [ "CVE-2023-46234" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-347" ], "github_reviewed": true, "github_reviewed_at": "2023-10-26T20:53:21Z", "nvd_published_at": "2023-10-26T15:15:09Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "### Summary\nAn upper bound check issue in `dsaVerify` function allows an attacker to construct signatures that can be successfully verified by any public key, thus leading to a signature forgery attack.\n\n### Details\nIn `dsaVerify` function, it checks whether the value of the signature is legal by calling function `checkValue`, namely, whether `r` and `s` are both in the interval `[1, q - 1]`. However, the second line of the `checkValue` function wrongly checks the upper bound of the passed parameters, since the value of `b.cmp(q)` can only be `0`, `1` and `-1`, and it can never be greater than `q`. \n\nIn this way, although the values of `s` cannot be `0`, an attacker can achieve the same effect as zero by setting its value to `q`, and then send `(r, s) = (1, q)` to pass the verification of any public key.\n\n### Impact\nAll places in this project that involve DSA verification of user-input signatures will be affected by this vulnerability.\n\n\n### Fix PR:\nSince the temporary private fork was deleted, here\u0027s a webarchive of the PR discussion and diff pages: [PR webarchive.zip](https://github.com/browserify/browserify-sign/files/13172957/PR.webarchive.zip)\n", "id": "GHSA-x9w5-v3q2-3rhw", "modified": "2024-02-28T03:30:30Z", "published": "2023-10-26T20:53:21Z", "references": [ { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/browserify/browserify-sign/security/advisories/GHSA-x9w5-v3q2-3rhw" }, { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46234" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/browserify/browserify-sign/commit/85994cd6348b50f2fd1b73c54e20881416f44a30" }, { "type": "PACKAGE", "url": "https://github.com/browserify/browserify-sign" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/10/msg00040.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3HUE6ZR5SL73KHL7XUPAOEL6SB7HUDT2" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6PVVPNSAGSDS63HQ74PJ7MZ3MU5IYNVZ" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5539" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ], "summary": "browserify-sign upper bound check issue in `dsaVerify` leads to a signature forgery attack" }
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.