Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:45:21 +0300
From: Eren Türkay <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] stratsec Security
 Advisory SS-2010-005: Samba Multiple DoS Vulnerabilities (3.3.x)

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:04:32AM +0200, Tomas Hoger wrote:
> Hi Eren!

Hi Tomas,

> Note that your bug id is off-by-one ;).  However, that's not the
> stratsec issue, you should be looking at this:

Ah, right. I confused the bug mentioned in 3.4.8 with the advisory.
Thank you for clarification and pointing this out!

>    o Fix an uninitialized variable read in smbd (bug #7254).
> This issue should rather be described as OOB read as mentioned in Josh's
> CVE assignment.  This problem may affect fairly old samba version, I've
> seen the same code / issue in some oldish 3.0.x versions.  The crash is
> not too reliable though, I've only seen crash on some (recent) versions
> using stratsec reproducer (you've noticed already their advisory
> incorrectly labels reproducers and has them mixed-up, right?).

Right. I am going to pick up the fix, then.

> CVE-2010-1642 mentioned above.
> NULL deref CVE-2010-1635 should only affect 3.5.x, as it occurs in
> this code, which does not exist in 3.4.x:
> On 3.3.x, reproducer causes smbd to follow error code path where
> smb_panic is called.

Thanks. To summarize, 3.3.x is only affected by OOB read (CVE-2010-1642)
As smbd follows error code path where smb_panic is called, I guess we
can say that 3.3.x is not affected by CVE-2010-1642.


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.