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
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ