[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:09:51 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>, Josselin Mouette <joss@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: Transmission can be made to crash
remotely
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/11/2013 06:47 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
> Hello Yves-Alexis,
>
> to follow up on this one. The source of the issue seems to be
> underlying libutp code: [1]
> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/5002#comment:22
>
> more specifically the way how libutp (previously) handled selective
> acknowledgements, which resulted in following two (libutp)
> patches: [2] https://github.com/bittorrent/libutp/issues/38 [3]
> https://github.com/bittorrent/libutp/issues/37
>
> Transmission upstream corrected this issue in v2.74: [4]
> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/query?milestone=2.74&group=component&order=severity
>
> with the following patch: [5]
> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/changeset/13646
>
> Ad assigning CVE ids - I think one CVE id is enough. The problem is
> in libutp code, and Transmission upstream seems to commit their own
> change only due to libutp (un)responsiveness: [6]
> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/5002#comment:32
>
> Thank you && Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat
> Security Response Team
>
> P.S.: All the links from above at one place are at: [7]
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909934
>
> ----- Original Message ----- On dim., 2013-02-10 at 11:50 +0100,
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Package: transmission-daemon Version: 2.52-3 Severity: grave
>> Tags: security patch upstream Justification: user security hole
>>
>> The transmission-daemon package in wheezy crashes regularly.
>> According to upstream this is a remote security hole (at least a
>> remote DoS, but most probably there is a way to take control of
>> the process).
>>
>> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/5044
>> https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/5002
>>
>> Apparently there is no CVE assigned. The bug is fixed upstream
>> and I’m attaching the patch. I’m currently testing a patched
>> package, and will report whether the fix is sufficient.
>>
>> Could a CVE be assigned for this?
>>
>> Thanks in advance, -- Yves-Alexis
Please use CVE-2012-6129 for this issue.
- --
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)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=ZqrS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
