Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: cve-assign@...re.org
To: rdecvalle@...are.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, thoger@...hat.com,
        mmcallis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [ruby-core:63604] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10019] [Open] segmentation fault/buffer overrun in pack.c (encodes)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Is MITRE or Red Hat going to assign a CVE for it?

We haven't yet been able to determine whether the discussion is about
two separate vulnerabilities.

http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/07/09/13 says:

  ruby -v: ruby 2.1.2p168 (2014-07-06 revision 46721) [i386-mingw32]

  ...

  While working with an AWS sample I hit a segmentation fault. The
  same sample works under 1.9.3.

First, we don't know what "The same sample works under 1.9.3" means.
It might mean "The same AWS sample is also a working vulnerability
reproducer when using Ruby 1.9.3." It might instead mean "With this
AWS sample, my program works normally when using Ruby 1.9.3; in other
words, no vulnerability is observed."

http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/07/10/15 says:

  Anyway, whatever the reporter is referring to, he mentions it
  doesn't occur in 1.9.3, and looking at 1.9.3, the only related
  differences I immediately noticed are the absence of the check at
  https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/pack.c#L829 in pack_pack
  function and padding being an int (instead of char) in the encodes
  function.

These differences in pack.c obviously aren't the same as (and
aren't expected to be the same as) the pack.c code changes in
Revision 46778 (aka the
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/repository/revisions/46778/diff/pack.c
changes).

(We realize that 1.9.3 is of interest because it is the "Old stable"
distribution advertised on the
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/ page.)

Is one of these scenarios the correct interpretation?

  1. There is only one vulnerability. Version 2.1.2 is an example of
     an affected version. Version 1.9.3 is an example of a
     non-affected version.

  2. There is only one vulnerability. Version 2.1.2 is an example of
     an affected version. Version 1.9.3 is also an example of an
     affected version.

  3. A vulnerability in pack.c was fixed during Ruby 1.x development,
     but then a regression occurred during Ruby 2.x development, and
     the vulnerability is present in, for example, version 2.1.2.
     (A regression would generally mean that two CVE IDs are
     required.)

  4. The Ruby 1.x pack.c and the Ruby 2.x pack.c are vulnerable in
     substantially different ways, requiring different fixes.
     (Again, this would generally mean that two CVE IDs are
     required.)

We don't require that the set of affected versions is precisely
determined before a CVE assignment. Narrowing it down to one of the
above scenarios is probably required because otherwise the correct
number of CVE IDs isn't known.

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxLXwAAoJEKllVAevmvmsQvMIAL9+jrIe5n2thqScfEOiJOZY
cmbCkJO32ZorlxWK99duvvOY3XNx/TXO2lQ55/pzYz9VbF/7VmqWOX9vRtf+9qOy
gkGFSwDzwyRKxRKZ3GqCyeNvleAl3pMdu9Yo/fqGTVRmYPqT6Xhd4wXzye+jdnlU
Fkh1OEfm9dEBEgECAUeslBkkSx1aQBFM6ZNHVPE7bSBhAtMbw5u3Bi0DLnq5lxLf
/yvPWAZQ/uEJFJoFBeODPHTQyvTmbeakmePJceyKyWqyVshaK1BqAxwf/fM+aX0J
byakIe2rtSvsYdstn4Plnh6tHBNYDfTLgsNt5JtEnnv4HQgD3dktgd/gsB56HO4=
=wul9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ