[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:06:30 +0000
From: Simon McVittie <smcv@...ian.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Debian / xterm #779397
On 03/03/15 09:19, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> | From: "Kurt Seifried" <kseifried@...hat.com>
> |
> | $ xterm -S/dev/pts/20
> | *** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/bin/xterm terminated
> |
> | Did this get a CVE? I don't see a DSA for xterm.
>
> no - someone mentioned the problem in an email - nothing more was said
There's some discussion on the Debian bug about whether this should be
considered to be a security vulnerability, or just a bug. Not every
buffer overflow is a vulnerability: it can only be a vulnerability if an
attacker can trigger it.
Is there any reason why it would be useful/sensible to pass untrusted
(pseudo-terminal filename, fd) pairs to the -S option? It seems to me
that if you're passing partially or entirely attacker-controlled
filenames to this option, you have probably already lost.
S
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.
