Re: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-05-03 Thread Christopher Schultz
Mark, On 4/29/22 18:17, Mark Thomas wrote: On 29/04/2022 19:41, Christopher Schultz wrote: 1. The underlying JVM is affected 2. A Connector is defined with uses mutual TLS 3. The client's key is ECDSA I was thinking that on startup, we could check for a vulnerable environment and simply

Re: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-05-01 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
пт, 29 апр. 2022 г. в 21:41, Christopher Schultz : > > All, > > CVE-2022-21449 is a bug in the JDK which allows a malicious signer using > ECDSA to forge a signature which an affected (buggy) verifier fails to > detect. > > I used deliberate language above instead of "client" and "server" > because

Re: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-04-29 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Openj9 is not affected I think so version wouldnt be enough, jvm name should be tested too. Le sam. 30 avr. 2022 à 00:18, Mark Thomas a écrit : > On 29/04/2022 19:41, Christopher Schultz wrote: > > > > > 1. The underlying JVM is affected > > 2. A Connector is defined with uses mutual TLS >

Re: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-04-29 Thread Mark Thomas
On 29/04/2022 19:41, Christopher Schultz wrote: 1. The underlying JVM is affected 2. A Connector is defined with uses mutual TLS 3. The client's key is ECDSA I was thinking that on startup, we could check for a vulnerable environment and simply refuse to start the server. If there are n

RE: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-04-29 Thread jonmcalexander
> Subject: Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449 > > All, > > CVE-2022-21449 is a bug in the JDK which allows a malicious signer using > ECDSA to forge a signature which an affected (buggy) verifier fails to detect. > > I used deliberate language above instead of "client" a

Tomcat mitigations for CVE-2022-21449

2022-04-29 Thread Christopher Schultz
All, CVE-2022-21449 is a bug in the JDK which allows a malicious signer using ECDSA to forge a signature which an affected (buggy) verifier fails to detect. I used deliberate language above instead of "client" and "server" because in many csases, the server is performing verification as well