[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:23:34 +0200
From: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: ghostscript and gv
Tomas Hoger wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:08:12 +0200 Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Gs's -P- not working (at least for gs_init.ps), is definitly a bug
> > that needs to be fixed.
>
> I believe we should try to clarify what CVE-2010-2055 got actually
> assigned to, as it seems to be used for more than one thing:
>
> - ghostscript uses CWD to search for initialization files
> - gv did not pass -P- to gs, leading to problems related to the default
> mentioned above
That's the initial situation.It can be fixed in two ways:
a) set SEARCH_HERE_FIRST=0 as default for gs
b) keep SEARCH_HERE_FIRST=1 and require applications to pass -P-
However, ...
> - some ghostscript versions search CWD even when started with -P-
... as it turned out neither a) nor b) actually solve the problem:
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691350#c11
So fixing gs must be part of the solution always. That's
http://svn.ghostscript.com/viewvc?view=rev&revision=11352
Therefore up to three CVE numbers could be assigned
a) insecure default of gs
b) applications don't pass -P-
c) non working -P-/SEARCH_HERE_FIRST
Fixing a) means b) isn't needed but then it's just a compile time
default that may or may not be changed by distros.
Both a) and b) imply a fix for c) though. No idea if a separate CVE
is actually useful in that case.
We've decided for a), fix gs once and for all. Hopefully. :-)
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
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.
