Ping Identity Directory Server versions 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 have been released. These are security updates, and customers running 7.x versions are strongly encouraged to upgrade.
The most important update included in these releases is a fix for a critical security issue introduced in the 22.214.171.124 version that could cause certain passwords to be recorded in the clear on the server filesystem. There are two instances in which this could have occurred:
- When creating an encrypted backup of the alarms, alerts, configuration, encryption settings, schema, tasks, or trust store backends, the backup descriptor was supposed to include the identifier of the encryption settings definition that was used to protect the contents of the backup. Instead of this identifier, the server would incorrectly include the password that backed that encryption settings definition. This issue did not affect backups of local DB backends (like userRoot), the LDAP-accessible changelog, or the replication database.
The server maintains a tool invocation log (logs/tools/tool-invocation.log), which keeps track of certain commands that are run on the system, especially those that may be used to alter the server configuration or data. Among other things, this tool includes the name of the tool and the arguments used to run it. Sensitive arguments, like those used to provide passwords, should automatically be redacted. However, if the tool is run with an argument that provides the path to a file containing a password, a bug could have caused the tool invocation log to record the contents of the first line of that file (which usually contains the password itself) rather than the path to that file. The following command-line tools were affected by this issue:
Other tools were not affected by this second issue. Also note that this issue only involved passwords provided in files that were directly referenced as arguments on the command line. Passwords that were provided directly on the command line, and passwords that were automatically included because of their presence in a tools.properties file, were properly redacted. Because of the nature of this issue, regular user passwords are not likely to have been exposed, but the passwords of administrators that may have run commands on the server system could have been recorded.
In both issues above, the passwords were written to a file on the server filesystem with permissions that made them only accessible to the account used to run the server. Other accounts on the system should not have been able to read the contents of those files. Nevertheless, if you believe that any passwords may have been compromised, we recommend taking the following steps to mitigate the risk:
- Update the server to a version that includes the fix for this issue. If you’re running version a 7.2 version, then you should upgrade to the 126.96.36.199 release. If you’re running a 7.0 version, then you should upgrade to either version 188.8.131.52 or version 184.108.40.206.
- If you believe that any user passwords may have been exposed in the logs/tools/tool-invocation.log file, then change the passwords for those users and sanitize or delete that log file.
- If you believe that an encryption settings definition password may have been exposed in a backup descriptor, then create a new encryption settings definition, set it as the preferred definition for all subsequent encryption operations, export your data to LDIF, and re-import the data so that it is re-encrypted with the new definition. Create new backups, and destroy old backups with the compromised password.
In addition to fixing the bugs that led to the potential exposure of these passwords, we have added additional automated tests to help ensure that other problems like this do not occur in the future.
Other Changes Included in the 220.127.116.11 Release
The following additional fixes have been included in the 18.104.22.168 release:
- Updated the behavior that the server exhibits if an attribute type is removed from the schema while that attribute type is still referenced by one or more server backends. In earlier releases, the server could fail to open a backend that referenced an attribute type that is no longer defined in the schema. The server will now permit the backend to be opened, but will generate an alert about any missing attribute type definitions on startup, and will also generate an alert on any access to an entry that contains a reference to a missing attribute type. The server will also attempt to prevent the removal of an attribute type that is still referenced by any of the backends.
- Fixed an issue in which the stop-server.bat batch file may not function properly on Windows systems with a locale that uses a character other than a period as a decimal separator.
- Fixed an issue in which the periodic stats logger output could have been difficult to parse on systems with a locale that uses a character other than the period as a decimal separator.
- Fixed an issue that prevented creating a constructed virtual attribute for an attribute that was marked SINGLE-VALUE in the server schema.
- Fixed an issue in which backups of the server’s encryption settings database could have been (automatically or explicitly) encrypted with a key from the encryption settings database.
Other Changes Included in the 22.214.171.124 Release
The following additional fixes have been included in the 126.96.36.199 release:
- Added debug logging for DNS lookups that take longer than a configured length of time (10 seconds by default). A new “DNS Resolution” monitor entry is available to provide information about DNS lookups performed by the server.
- Fixed an issue in which SCIM searches could have an incorrect startIndex value if the scim-resources.xml file was configured with multiple base DNs.
- Fixed an issue that could cause an error while performing an encrypted LDIF export of a directory with a very large number of non-leaf entries. In such cases, the LDIF export will be split into multiple files, but the attempt to merge those files at the end of processing would fail. This error would not result in any data loss or exposure, and the exported data could still be imported by either providing all of the files to the import-ldif utility with separate –ldifFile arguments or by manually merging the files.