[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:40:09 -0400
From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE Request [two ids] -- cabextract -- 1, Infinite
loop in MS-ZIP and Quantum decoders (minor) 2, Integer wrap-around (crash) by
processing certain *.cab files in test archive mode
This seems to be a bit of a slippery slope. While I have no problem
with these particular issues being assigned CVEs, since they were
treated as security issues, fixed, and caused unintended application
behavior, I have to wonder if maybe it's a bad idea to give CVEs for
crashes of this variety. Denial-of-service issues are tricky. In my
opinion, the following types of DoS bugs are security relevant:
1. Crashes in client programs that maintain some additional state
beyond a single session. For example, a document reader with multiple
tabs where a crash results in losing the contents of other tabs, or a
web browser.
2. Issues that allow users to crash processes not under their own
control. This includes remote DoS vulnerabilities, kernel panics,
crashes in services such as files that crash A/V engines when parsed,
etc.
3. Crashes in library code where many programs may be impacted.
4. Crashes in client applications where further exploitability is
possible (basically, promising memory corruption issues that haven't
been fully developed).
When you open it up to "anything that causes a crash", the pool of
"security" bugs expands to include every fuzz file that causes a crash
and every stability issue in every program. For example, I have a
high number of fuzz files that cause crashes in the readelf utility in
non-exploitable ways. I don't consider these relevant for security,
because if you need to trick a user into running the program to
trigger the crash and there are no additional consequences besides
them crashing the program you tricked them into running, there is no
negative security impact besides perhaps a confused victim.
Although, I suppose my fourth item is the one that presents a problem
- who gets to decide whether a program crash is exploitable or not?
What if they're wrong? Just trying to spur some discussion on this,
I'd love to hear what others have to say - sometimes it's nice to
break up all the CVE assignments with an actual conversation. :)
-Dan
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com> wrote:
> ----- "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve, vendors,
>>
>> two security issues have been reported against cabextract:
>>
>> 1, Infinite loop in MS-ZIP and Quantum decoders (minor issue):
>>
>> A deficiency has been reported in the way cabextract extracted certain
>> Cabinet (*.cab) files, using the MZ-ZIP and Quantum decompressors. If a
>> local user was tricked into opening a specially-crafted *.cab file, it
>> could lead to infinite loop.
>>
>
> CVE-2010-2800
>
>> 2, Integer wrap-around (crash) by processing certain *.cab files in
>> test archive mode
>>
>> An integer wrap-around flaw has been reported in the way cabextract
>> processed certain Cabinet (*.cab) archive files. If a local user was
>> tricked into opening a specially-crafted *.cab archive in test archive
>> mode, it could lead to cabextract executable crash.
>>
>
> CVE-2010-2801
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> JB
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
