Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Josh Bressers <>
Cc: Chris Allegretta <>, coley <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: GNU nano (minor)

----- "Dan Rosenberg" <> wrote:

> Two issues were recently addressed upstream for GNU nano to provide
> better security when editing files owned by other untrusted users,
> especially when editing as root.  I'm not sure if either of these
> issues require CVE identifiers due to the narrow circumstances in
> which they can be exploited, but I figured I'd leave that up to you.
> Changelog is at
> relevant entries at revisions 4490, 4491, 4493, and 4496.
> 1.  When editing a file owned by another user, the owner of the file may
> replace the file mid-editing with a symbolic link, resulting in the
> editor overwriting the target of the symbolic link on saving with the
> privileges of the user doing the editing, without any warning to the
> editor.  Since this could be considered akin to replacing a target being
> chown'd or chmod'd with a symbolic link and requires a very targeted
> attack, I would lean towards this not needing a CVE, but that's your
> call.

Since they fixed it, and it is a plausible attack, I'm assigning this

> 2.  When backup files are enabled and root is editing a file by an
> untrusted user, that user may exploit race conditions in the creation of
> backup files to take ownership of arbitrary files.  While the scenario
> for exploitation is somewhat unlikely (root editing untrusted files),
> this attack can be done reliably and without requiring precise timing, so
> this seems to be a good candidate for a CVE.




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.