[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:34:12 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request: seunshare and setexeccon issues
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:21:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:34:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure how many CVE numbers should be assigned here. As far as
>> >> I know, none have been assigned so far.
>> >
>> > I think you missed this:
>> >
>> > http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/05/08/1
>> >
>> > in which CVE-2014-3215 was assigned.
>>
>> I did. Thanks.
>
> Does your CVE request still stand, or are you satisfied with this one
> CVE id for the interaction (not for a particular component)?
I think that one CVE is for the interaction is fine.
>
>> FWIW, it appears that common exim configurations are vulnerable, so
>> this might be worse than just an exposure.
>
> Please try to demo this. Thanks!
I can give it a shot, but there's no ETA, since I have no clue how to
use exim. I just looked at the source, and it appears to use setuid
(as opposed to setresuid) to drop privileges, and it will dlopen
user-requested libraries.
I think that the other issues in the original post may be CVE-worthy
despite their low impact -- they can, at best, cause sandbox
protection to be less effective than intended.
--Andy
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.
