Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:10:50 +0100
From: Pierre Joye <>
To: Huzaifa Sidhpurwala <>
Subject: Re: utf-8 security issue in php - 2 CVEs?


New fixes or improved fixes, even for known flaw, get new CVE #. I was
not sure about that a couple of months ago, but that's the answer I
got when I asked about the policy for such cases. I think it makes
even more sense in this particular flaw.


On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala
<> wrote:
> Hi,
> This is regarding the "utf-8 security issue in php", which was discussed
> on this list[1]
> From the php bug[2], it is clear that this issue has been assigned
> CVE-2010-3870
> However yesterday another CVE was assigned to this bug i.e. CVE-2009-5016[3]
> The upstream bug report, describes two issues:
> a. An integer overflow
> b. flaw in handling ill-formed UTF8 characters.
> The integer overflow issue was solved somewhere in year 2009, which was
> however not a complete fix since the ill-formed UTF8 chars., were still
> not properly validated. The rest of the issues were solved sometime back.
> It seems that the integer overflow is not exploitable on its own, you
> need to couple it with the second issue for the exploit to really work.
> Therefore do we really need two CVEs for this issue?
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> --
> Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Security Response Team


@pierrejoye | |

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.