Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:11:49 +0100 From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Cc: cve-assign@...re.org Subject: Re: Re: Handful of libass issues Hi Apologies for the late reply. On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:24:24AM -0500, Brandon Perry wrote: > > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:39 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:23:22PM -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote: > >>> The third is a huge memory allocation leading to a crash that wasn't > >>> fixed because a good solution is unavailable at the moment. > >> > >> Use CVE-2016-7971. > > > > It looks from the discussion in > > https://github.com/libass/libass/pull/240 that this issue is disputed > > to be actually in libass. > > > > For context, while the input caused a crash with AFL (not fuzzing > with ASAN) and it crashes with ASAN, I was unable to reproduce the > crash with libass externally. I was only able to take up a hug > amount of memory and take a long time to finish parsing the input. > > I asked if they dev wanted to reject the CVE but got no strong > response either way, so I decided to not pursue it. Sure understand that. Currently, still the CVE is associated with libass. @MITRE CVE team, could you clarify the above? Is it still desired to have the CVE associated with libass, or shoult it be rejected? Regards, Salvatore
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