On 11/4/2015 11:22 PM, Fraser Tweedale wrote: >The attached patch fixes GET-based OCSP requests, >https://fedorahosted.org/pki/ticket/1658 > >Cheers, >Fraser Some comments: 1. The ALLOW_ENCODED_SLASH parameter will fix the problem, but there's a security concern: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/security-howto.html The org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.ALLOW_BACKSLASH and org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.UDecoder.ALLOW_ENCODED_SLASH system properties allow non-standard parsing of the request URI. Using these options when behind a reverse proxy may enable an attacker to bypass any security constraints enforced by the proxy. However, since we are not dependent on a proxy to protect PKI pages in Tomcat (we have our own ACL in PKI) I suppose this is not an issue, unless anybody else has a concern.

2. I think the catalina.properties that needs to be modified is in base/server/share/conf. The others are duplicates that should've been removed.

3. During deployment the catalina.properties is copied into <instance dir>/conf. So if we want to fix existing instances we need to write an upgrade script.

On 1/19/2016 12:06 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote: >Updated patch attached; comments inline. > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:11:24PM -0600, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote: >>On 11/4/2015 11:22 PM, Fraser Tweedale wrote: >>>The attached patch fixes GET-based OCSP requests, >>>https://fedorahosted.org/pki/ticket/1658 >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Fraser >> >>Some comments: >> >>1. The ALLOW_ENCODED_SLASH parameter will fix the problem, but there's a >>security concern: >> >>http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/security-howto.html >> >>The org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.ALLOW_BACKSLASH and >>org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.UDecoder.ALLOW_ENCODED_SLASH system properties >>allow non-standard parsing of the request URI. Using these options when >>behind a reverse proxy may enable an attacker to bypass any security >>constraints enforced by the proxy. >> >>However, since we are not dependent on a proxy to protect PKI pages in >>Tomcat (we have our own ACL in PKI) I suppose this is not an issue, unless >>anybody else has a concern. >> >I do not see a vulnerability - AFAICT the vulnerability was from >proxies enforcing path-based access control but parsed path >differently, which as you point out is not our situation. Hopefully >we are not overlooking something. > >>2. I think the catalina.properties that needs to be modified is in >>base/server/share/conf. The others are duplicates that should've been >>removed. >> >Patch updated. I'll send another patch removing the obsolete >catalina.properties files soon. > >>3. During deployment the catalina.properties is copied into <instance >>dir>/conf. So if we want to fix existing instances we need to write an >>upgrade script. >> >Added an upgrade script. > >Thanks for reviewing! >Fraser > ACK.