Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:26:44 -0500 From: Jeff Mitchell <mitchell@....org> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com CC: cve@...re.org Subject: Disputing CVE-2011-4122 Hello, I've been asked by the kcheckpass maintainer to lodge a dispute of CVE-2011-4122. As explained in the blog entry linked from the CVE, the problem is that neither kcheckpass nor OpenPAM validate the 'service_name' input argument of pam_start(). This hole can be used to make PAM load arbitrary shared libraries, which can be used to execute arbitrary code as root, as kcheckpass is setuid root. One could assume that kcheckpass should do the validation. However, the PAM documentation makes no mention of what a service name is supposed to look like, and consequently it must be treated as opaque by the application code. Therefore all validation must be expected to be done by the library, and failure to do so must be seen as a bug in the library exclusively. As a result, it is correct to list kcheckpass as an affected application, but not as the origin of the vulnerability. The linked advisories from ISS and Secunia are clearer about that. Thanks, Jeff : http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-4122 Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (260 bytes)
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.