[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:15:56 -0500
From: Marc Deslauriers <marc.deslauriers@...onical.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: CVE request: file(1) DoS
On 2015-01-03 02:50 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> On 2014-12-17 03:44, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> There are two more DoSes fixed in ELF parser of file(1), similar to the
>> recent CVE-2014-8116.
>
> These fixes were included in 5.22 release:
>
> http://mx.gw.com/pipermail/file/2015/001660.html
>
>> 1. Limit the number of ELF notes processed
>> Report: http://mx.gw.com/pipermail/file/2014/001653.html
>> Fix: https://github.com/file/file/commit/ce90e05774dd77d86cfc8dfa6da57b32816841c4
>
> This issue seems to be introduced here:
>
> https://github.com/file/file/commit/956a45ab1c54b11304b367056f41905e72a02380#diff-bc5c24ef9f39a5f4963ca28ecbc645b3L423
>
>
> which ended up in 5.08 release. Hence releases 5.08--5.21 are vulnerable.
>
>> 2. Limit string printing to 100 chars
>> Report: http://mx.gw.com/pipermail/file/2014/001654.html
>> Fix: https://github.com/file/file/commit/65437cee25199dbd385fb35901bc0011e164276c
>
> This issue was introduced in the following commit:
>
> https://github.com/file/file/commit/c8451af8ab0c2e2a93ce93b9c68257d31576cc85
>
> which ended up in 5.16 release. Hence releases 5.16--5.21 are vulnerable.
>
>> Both problems amplified by the fact that the same section in ELF file
>> can be referenced and processed by file(1) multiple times. This is also
>> fixed in the first commit linked above.
>>
>> Could CVE(s) please be assigned?
>
Did these ever get CVEs?
Marc.
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.
