Debian Bug report logs - #792231
Electrum version 1.9.8 vulnerable, needs update

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Electrum version 1.9.8 vulnerable, needs update

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:20:08 +0300

Package: electrum
Version: 1.9.8


Update is needed for Electrum from version 1.9.8 to 2.3.x (include
backports for wheezy as well).

- On July 4th 2015, the Bitcoin network switched to v3 blocks (softfork)
which the newer version of Electrum knows about.

- Electrum 2.3.x has significant client-to-server communication
improvements, security and bug fixes as well as multiple options for
users to select custom inputs for a transaction when making a payment.

- Seeds from newer versions are not compatible with version 1.9.8. For
example, an user can't migrate his wallet from another OS running
Electrum 2.x to Debian, since his seed will not be compatible.

- Homepage https://www.electrum.org/

Message #10 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>

To: 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: do we have an eta

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:42:40 +0300

Is the package update planned? I keep receiving emails for a downstream
distro relaying on Debian that users coming from different operating
systems running Electrum 2.x can't switch as their wallet seed won't be
recognized in 1.9.8, making it impossible to rebuild the wallet.

Thanks!

Message #17 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Ward <teward@dark-net.net>

To: 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: This needs examined as soon as possible

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:49:21 -0400

1.9.8 is a year old.  In addition, 2.4 is the current version.

Failing to update breaks recovery of wallets from newer versions, and
there are quite a lot of improvements in 2.4 over 1.9.8 that should be
reviewed and included.



Thomas

Message #22 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>

To: Thomas Ward <teward@dark-net.net>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: This needs examined as soon as possible

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:41:23 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Unfortunately there are some significant challenges with 2.0+. The primary
issue is the dependency on tlslite, which was removed from Debian
previously due to being insecure and unmaintained. In addition, quite a bit
of the certificate handling code does things incorrectly (see eg. the
certificate chain verification code[1] that does not check the certificate
purpose, allowing anyone with a valid cert to sign a fraudulent cert as if
they were a CA).

I would very much welcome help with these issues, but be warned there is
most likely a fair amount of work involved in either rewriting the
cert-handling code to use another library (probably
python-openssl/python-cryptography), or resurrecting and maintaining the
tlslite package.

[1]
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/lib/paymentrequest.py#L119

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 at 15:51 Thomas Ward <teward@dark-net.net> wrote:

> 1.9.8 is a year old.  In addition, 2.4 is the current version.
>
> Failing to update breaks recovery of wallets from newer versions, and
> there are quite a lot of improvements in 2.4 over 1.9.8 that should be
> reviewed and included.
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #27 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Ward <teward@dark-net.net>

To: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: This needs examined as soon as possible

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:53:00 -0400

On 08/03/2015 10:41 AM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> Unfortunately there are some significant challenges with 2.0+. The
> primary issue is the dependency on tlslite, which was removed from
> Debian previously due to being insecure and unmaintained. In addition,
> quite a bit of the certificate handling code does things incorrectly
> (see eg. the certificate chain verification code[1] that does not
> check the certificate purpose, allowing anyone with a valid cert to
> sign a fraudulent cert as if they were a CA).
>
> I would very much welcome help with these issues, but be warned there
> is most likely a fair amount of work involved in either rewriting the
> cert-handling code to use another library (probably
> python-openssl/python-cryptography), or resurrecting and maintaining
> the tlslite package.
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/lib/paymentrequest.py#L119

If that's the case, does it even remain feasible to keep this in Debian
with a year-old version that has its own incompatibilities with future
versions and its own problems?

Based solely on what you've said (a dependency doesn't exist anymore,
other handling codes being bad and thereby introducing a MITM problem,
etc.), it *sounds* like it should be removed...


Thomas

Message #32 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>

To: 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: electrum

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:20:25 +0200

On 08/03/2015 10:41 AM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> Unfortunately there are some significant challenges with 2.0+. The
> primary issue is the dependency on tlslite, which was removed from
> Debian previously due to being insecure and unmaintained. In addition,
> quite a bit of the certificate handling code does things incorrectly
> (see eg. the certificate chain verification code[1] that does not
> check the certificate purpose, allowing anyone with a valid cert to
> sign a fraudulent cert as if they were a CA).
>
> I would very much welcome help with these issues, but be warned there
> is most likely a fair amount of work involved in either rewriting the
> cert-handling code to use another library (probably
> python-openssl/python-cryptography), or resurrecting and maintaining
> the tlslite package.
>

hello, Electrum developer here.

It would be nice if you could post an issue on Github describing
precisely the problems you see with certificate handling.

I am aware that tlslite is unmaintained, and I am planning to replace
it. However, pycrypto is not an option for Electrum, because it is not
pure python.

thank you,

Thomas

Message #37 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>

To: 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: electrum

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:24:26 +0200

On 08/03/2015 10:41 AM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> In addition,
> quite a bit of the certificate handling code does things incorrectly
> (see eg. the certificate chain verification code[1] that does not
> check the certificate purpose, allowing anyone with a valid cert to
> sign a fraudulent cert as if they were a CA).
>

Instead of suggesting that there are "quite a bit" of incorrect things,
and then citing one example, can you provide the full list of problems
that you see?

also, by "certificate purpose", do you mean Key-Usage?

thanks

Message #42 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>

To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: electrum

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:50:05 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 at 20:27 Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org> wrote:

> On 08/03/2015 10:41 AM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> > In addition,
> > quite a bit of the certificate handling code does things incorrectly
> > (see eg. the certificate chain verification code[1] that does not
> > check the certificate purpose, allowing anyone with a valid cert to
> > sign a fraudulent cert as if they were a CA).
> >
>
> Instead of suggesting that there are "quite a bit" of incorrect things,
> and then citing one example, can you provide the full list of problems
> that you see?
>

Sorry, I believe I owe you an apology for my carelessly written email.
Firstly, I took a look at the code again, and I think the single issue I
described does not actually exist, I probably misread the code before. (To
be precise, while the code does not check the key usage, it *does* check
the "Basic Constraints" extension which I believe is the correct check to
prevent the flaw I mistakenly identified).

While it is quite possible for newly written certificate-handling / X509
code to be buggy simply due to the complex nature of what this entails, I
don't have any specific issues to highlight at this time, and I can hardly
claim to be an expert in this area myself, so I retract my previous claim.

However, the primary issue is still dealing with tlslite somehow: I do not
think the FTP masters / security team will be happy with me distributing an
embedded copy of tlslite in the electrum package, and I don't feel
comfortable maintaining tlslite in Debian either way given the
circumstances.

Note that python-cryptography is the "cryptography" library upon which
python-openssl ("PyOpenSSL") is based, not "pycrypto" which is a different
library; but cryptography does use cffi to bind to OpenSSL etc., so is also
not pure python. Unfortunately most of the existing mature TLS / X.509 /
etc. handling code exists in C libraries...

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #47 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>

To: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: electrum

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 23:49:29 +0200

Le 03/08/2015 21:50, Tristan Seligmann a écrit :
>
> However, the primary issue is still dealing with tlslite somehow: I do not
> think the FTP masters / security team will be happy with me distributing an
> embedded copy of tlslite in the electrum package, and I don't feel
> comfortable maintaining tlslite in Debian either way given the
> circumstances.
> 

I perfectly understand that. As mentioned earlier, I am also planning to
get rid of that dependency, for the same reasons.

Electrum currently uses tlslite to verify RSA signatures, and to parse
x509 certificates. For RSA signatures I am considering using the
following package: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rsa

> Note that python-cryptography is the "cryptography" library upon which
> python-openssl ("PyOpenSSL") is based, not "pycrypto" which is a different
> library; but cryptography does use cffi to bind to OpenSSL etc., so is also
> not pure python. Unfortunately most of the existing mature TLS / X.509 /
> etc. handling code exists in C libraries...
> 

Oh I see. The reason why I want to stay with pure-python is that it
makes the code easy to deploy on various platforms. I would not mind
using a C library, though, if there is a pure-python fallback.

Message #52 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>

To: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: electrum

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:40:59 +0200

Please note that the tlslite the dependency has been removed from
Electrum since version 2.4.1.

The only part of tlslite that was used in Electrum was the RSA
implementation; it is now added to the electrum lib.

Thomas

Message #57 received at 792231@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>

To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>, 792231@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#792231: electrum

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:33:22 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Great news!

I'm currently testing a 2.4.1 Debian package and so far everything looks
good; assuming nothing else turns up, I will be uploading the new version
within a few days.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 at 11:41 Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org> wrote:

> Please note that the tlslite the dependency has been removed from
> Electrum since version 2.4.1.
>
> The only part of tlslite that was used in Electrum was the RSA
> implementation; it is now added to the electrum lib.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #62 received at 792231-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@debian.org>

To: 792231-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#792231: fixed in electrum 2.4.2+dfsg1-1

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:19:01 +0000

Source: electrum
Source-Version: 2.4.2+dfsg1-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
electrum, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 792231@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@debian.org> (supplier of updated electrum package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:55:43 +0200
Source: electrum
Binary: python-electrum electrum
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.4.2+dfsg1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Bitcoin Packaging Team <pkg-bitcoin-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@debian.org>
Description:
 electrum   - Easy to use Bitcoin client
 python-electrum - Easy to use Bitcoin client - Python module
Closes: 788538 792231
Changes:
 electrum (2.4.2+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   [ Vasudev Kamath ]
   * Drop myself from uploaders.
 .
   [ Tristan Seligmann ]
   * New upstream release (closes: #792231, #788538).
     - Update debian/watch.
     - Remove 3001_dont_fetch_translations_from_web.patch: obsolete.
     - Remove 2001_add_tailing_semicolon.patch: merged upstream.
     - Remove 2002_dont_use_local_share.patch: obsolete.
     - Remove 1001_use_sslv23_method.patch: merged upstream.
     - Remove 1002_qt_compatibility.patch: merged upstream.
     - Repack upstream tarball to remove prebuilt sphinx docs which contain
       some JavaScript libraries without source.
Checksums-Sha1:
 09bbe2c58b3f6cee922b3bd3b7b0080c7a38e0f8 1915 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.dsc
 94c098e50c2cccbf931e576e116d3e4a931ad7eb 1843601 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1.orig.tar.gz
 a3b2b314cabde45a7fe604ef2b3b4a44a2474d80 12540 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.debian.tar.xz
 254b3ac2aed20bda246875d7395e472d67c39814 48150 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb
 531b4844cd423f11bcc5a3ef489216c702dda971 592214 python-electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 50e40523f503d640077c813ffa28c198f7373245fb2665a7976e769706d6ee92 1915 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.dsc
 63547211ebb34b34f1607a7b7318c89816fe0d7203669e1da892bc332c3a8ade 1843601 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1.orig.tar.gz
 045381f1699ec1c2085e92bc95871537d04806153bd30bdc86a1569d98683cdb 12540 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.debian.tar.xz
 11c37acb3413d8f6c3a631907fcd77387730ef00965921ec0a5a93c0d80a8388 48150 electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb
 533294b50c71ad18fca37c036095caafef47e07549e89cc0c8c97eceeebedafb 592214 python-electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb
Files:
 cc2f197c4f119dbb39b4df7c22b9530b 1915 utils optional electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.dsc
 b31d0e917b8eaa4e90f2bc207a677503 1843601 utils optional electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1.orig.tar.gz
 12620f302d2595a7b788b971e01c1972 12540 utils optional electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1.debian.tar.xz
 8322c325f276db9bc716d08e43fb4861 48150 utils optional electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb
 9f888f190fce8c51edf0360adcd01a17 592214 python optional python-electrum_2.4.2+dfsg1-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=
=/ojj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.