Bug#349283: tor: Tor security advisory: hidden services can be located quickly

2006-01-22 Thread Steve Kemp
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:17:36PM -0500, Chris Howie wrote:
 Package: tor
 Version: 0.1.0.16-1
 Severity: grave
 Tags: security
 Justification: user security hole

  Tor isn't included in a Debian stable release, so no need for
 a DSA.

Steve
--


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#349283: tor: Tor security advisory: hidden services can be located quickly

2006-01-21 Thread Peter Palfrader
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Chris Howie wrote:

 Package: tor
 Version: 0.1.0.16-1
 Severity: grave
 Tags: security
 Justification: user security hole
 
 Source: http://archives.seul.org/or/announce/Jan-2006/msg1.html
 
 Basically an attacker who can run a fast Tor server can find the location of a
 hidden service in a matter of hours, possibly even minutes.  This is fixed in
 0.1.1.12-alpha, but as this is an alpha release it may contain other bugs.

So your options are
 - do not run a hidden service
 - wait for a few weeks or months until 0.1.1.x becomes stable and
   I upload it to sid
 - use 0.1.1.x now (from experimental or my backports archive
   http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorOnDebian

Also, Tor continues to be as fine as ever for people who don't offer
hidden services, so maybe grave is a bit strong.

Cheers,
Peter


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#349283: tor: Tor security advisory: hidden services can be located quickly

2006-01-21 Thread Chris Howie
Peter Palfrader wrote:
 Also, Tor continues to be as fine as ever for people who don't offer
 hidden services, so maybe grave is a bit strong.

Nonetheless it is a serious security hole for people who *do* run hidden
services.  I thought grave might be a bit too high, but serious is specifically
for Debian Policy violations, and important seems a bit too weak.  If there was
something between grave and important (e.g. a security issue with a particular
menu item) I would have picked that.

In the abscence of such a severity I stand by my decision of grave.  (Better it
be considered more severe than it is, than to be considered less severe than it
is.)

-- 
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d-(--) s:- a---? C++(+++)$ UL P$ L+++ E---
W++ N o++ K? w--$ O M- V- PS--(---) PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5? X-
R(+)- tv-(--) b- DI+ D++ G+++ e++ h(--)--- !r+++ y-+++
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature