[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:51:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>,
"Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>,
Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: CVE Request -- glibc: strcoll() integer overflow
leading to buffer overflow + another alloca() stack overflow issue
(upstream #14547 && #14552)
Hi Florian,
thank you for the clarification.
> On 09/07/2012 07:21 PM, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>
>> 2) Issue #2 (mentioned here only for completeness, but I am not of
>> the opinion this should receive a CVE identifier. See argumentation
>> below [but open to glibc upstream / others to disprove it]).
>
> I will hold off on issuing a CVE for this then. Anyone want to weigh in?
>
> It looks as if the alloca issue was introduced at the same time as the
> malloc-related overflow:
>
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=5358d026c74
>
> So perhaps one CVE is enough for glibc bugs 14552 and 14547 because the
> problems are similar and affect the same versions.
Should the alloca() issue get CVE identifier, then I would rather use two
CVE identifiers. Though those issues might affect same glibc versions,
one is integer overflow, leading to heap-based buffer overflow, while
the alloca() one would be stack-based buffer overflow.
So to clearly identify, it would be better if the second one would be allocated
too (if Steve won't mind).
Kurt, could you allocate yet one then?
Thank you && Regards, Jan.
--
Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
>
> --
> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security 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.
