Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:29:25 +0200
From: Tomas Hoger <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: ghostscript and gv

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:23:34 +0200 Ludwig Nussel wrote:

> > - some ghostscript versions search CWD even when started with -P-
> ... as it turned out neither a) nor b) actually solve the problem:
> So fixing gs must be part of the solution always. That's

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

> 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.

b) is likely to require per-application CVE.  With the changed default,
one won't need to care about them though.  I agree c) should better get
a separate CVE if it's not what CVE-2010-2055 text already tries to
describe, given the "related to improper support for the -P- option"

Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Security Response Team

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.