[From nobody Thu Nov  5 13:33:04 2026
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Dec 2023 18:13:47 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
 (2021-04-09) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-113.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,
 BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
 DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FROMDEVELOPER,HAS_PACKAGE,SPF_HELO_NONE,
 SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,
 USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST autolearn=ham
 autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 18; hammy, 150; neutral, 132; spammy,
 0. spammytokens:
 hammytokens:0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:sk:stravin,
 0.000-+--H*RT:sk:stravin, 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:311,
 0.000-+--H*RT:311, 0.000-+--H*RT:108
Return-path: <smcv@debian.org>
Received: from stravinsky.debian.org ([2001:41b8:202:deb::311:108]:47764)
 from C=NA, ST=NA, L=Ankh Morpork, O=Debian SMTP, OU=Debian SMTP CA,
 CN=stravinsky.debian.org, EMAIL=hostmaster@stravinsky.debian.org (verified)
 by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <smcv@debian.org>) id 1rDTjv-00EDsD-Kj
 for submit@bugs.debian.org; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:13:47 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; 
 s=smtpauto.stravinsky;
 h=X-Debian-User:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:
 Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
 Content-Description:In-Reply-To:References;
 bh=gmzefXWZzeIZ4ZS2Il7Se5mjE0hnTXUHsBOwGsCY+Ns=; b=HlOzLTCCEYKHgwWxK7mTj7JjFp
 Pzu+vNuCpY9dN5sx4LQqsYAuqzFuDq48i8TaMN+ofuDpVHdfor7ET8yu8FjdArU99x5O6Yrnv637Y
 qFmU8KZ1v++NzfSomZHXIH5lHCM1+9akme9JoFousEgjxenSwa29y2gG7DG3p68n3YX8+lwQ5dOAB
 imh3frXDDNa+Kr/vsgr4qQoPdqwns2cDcVKhevue47UMQRCTNxPnte04/1L/12FdXqNAXevHSDxW/
 ibP0R8k/bBqwZ3V7g4uRFzo/QKOVzCIKqdUAuxb6ptnqYsJqEkd/NAry5DcdXDYSpvnOljDy3hbOq
 7PCRoriQ==;
Received: from authenticated user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <smcv@debian.org>) id 1rDTjs-006zl7-Fx
 for submit@bugs.debian.org; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:13:45 +0000
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:13:41 +0000
From: Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: CVE-2023-5616: if sshd is enabled but socket-activated,
 control-center will say it's disabled
Message-ID: <ZXn0VfkIOuXE_aO9@tautology.pseudorandom.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mutt-Fcc: =.lists.debian/
X-Reportbug-Version: 12.0.0
X-Debian-User: smcv
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: gnome-control-center
Version: 1:45.1-1
Severity: important
Tags: upstream security
Forwarded: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/issues/2794
X-Debbugs-Cc: team@security.debian.org
Control: found -1 1:3.30.3-2~deb10u1
Control: found -1 1:3.38.4-1
Control: found -1 1:43.6-2~deb12u1

If ssh.service is disabled but ssh.socket is enabled, as documented
in file:///usr/share/doc/openssh-client/README.Debian.gz section
"Socket-based activation with systemd", then gnome-control-center's
Sharing panel will indicate that remote login via ssh is
disabled. This was originally reported to Ubuntu by Zygmunt Krynicki in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/2039577.

Ubuntu have treated this as a security issue, on the basis that users
who have been misinformed about the status of remote login might make
security-sensitive assumptions that are, in fact, untrue. I'm not really
convinced that this is a serious security issue, and Ubuntu seem to
have been treating this as an Ubuntu-specific thing rather than talking
to upstream about it, so I've reported it here as important rather
than grave.

A mitigation is that in Debian (unlike Ubuntu), socket activation for
sshd is not the default - I suspect that might be why Ubuntu treated
this as Ubuntu-specific.

I think older Debian suites are *probably* affected, hence marking this
bug as Found in all older releases, but I have not verified this: it's
possible that there is some reason why they are unaffected.

Unless the security team have reasons to want this to be treated as
urgent, I would suggest that instead of rushing to apply Ubuntu's
solution, we should see what happens upstream, and then follow that in
Debian when the dust has settled.

    smcv
]