[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:48:06 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Marko Lindqvist <cazfi74@...il.com>
Subject: Re: About CVE-2012-5645
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/21/2012 05:26 PM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> I saw message that Freeciv bug #20003 has been assigned
> CVE-2012-5645 : http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2012/q4/484
>
> I'd like to clarify things a bit. It was not single issue, but
> more like two separate issues. Most importantly this leads to patch
> listed
> (http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv?view=revision&revision=21670)
> to fix only part of the problems described. Something like:
>
> A denial of service flaw was found in the way the server component
> of Freeciv, a turn-based, multi-player, X based strategy game,
> processed certain packets (invalid packets with whole packet length
> lower than packet header size). A remote attacker could send a
> specially-crafted packet that, when processed would lead to freeciv
> server to terminate (due to memory exhaustion)
>
>
> The other half: A denial of service flaw was found in the way the
> server component of Freeciv, a turn-based, multi-player, X based
> strategy game, processed certain packets (syntactically valid
> packets, but whose processing would lead to an infinite loop). A
> remote attacker could send a specially-crafted packet that, when
> processed would lead to freeciv server to become unresponsive (due
> to excessive CPU use).
>
> is fixed in
> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv?view=revision&revision=21701
>
>
>
> Both are fixed in 2.3.3 (and patch versions applied to the stable
> branch S2_3 release was made from:
> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv?view=revision&revision=21672 ,
> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv?view=revision&revision=21703 )
>
>
> - ML
>
Hmm I'm waffling here. The issues are the same version/reporter,
roughly the same, can you post the http://cwe.mitre.org/ identifiers
for these two issues? If they are different enough this might warrant
a CVE split but for now I'm leaving it merged.
- --
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ37l2AAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTTkkQAJjFSeE5ooOK0OsMUzyCNqgC
/rlMkokbTgM+BjIc6vSwNl5Kt46k5qhCfz9DR2u0JQDCk71IkeWSohiSug2zBy9E
3kkCRX3+csQZnksYWLWwIu4kZa+4LY1NoGGNr0c+ZZZ89i2ZMpiu5ywdoovn722g
PY67l8Nw2UrpOY68Cf/ydBFKW/WxkWUUIpI6X6Fs0E3NwvL6Hi8JRkOFTGKLvhfN
xEH7Xgp/YHw/WDSiPmTTtSSKLZx9h5SM6+Yv/h7oEU2mvNDqmMRkAYyv2+nW/A+Q
rxCRFvw8vb/woXIR+Mbqe37M9JHMxPJYnPD3t9au9+jA1Dcfp6NC7wGCMuDzXvDZ
34FV2L8h10RP//P3XN4kNtMScJxD2H+l3hzGjNFm8ZToHAdElkoy0ns/T04Tr0Mp
0sjoUhUL7nwBYf17BTzwPdY9I7XfCBxlvqbyDTd5EjGKYBuOfLvnr5WMdflY1/RN
a/VkACs7vJ3kXkBllUudfAL/YncGCxmwQjYEzDbafKkiwoPa5IqXxOIhLh9Gw5ej
ruHcAkCgxYiJmnCk6aH69OFM3w5nYrz4mwctfGfk7TKLYdBvhfzL3VYB3X3DvID0
1mTwIqD8jHJ5o/zLg/DddNLkwgllvKNDmsaSCIcd4Q4uees9ghPXbc8rtFA5ld6N
+1VR77CoqnGLb2OUJa/v
=LoLH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
