Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:08:52 -0400 (EDT) From: cve-assign@...re.org To: jamie@...onical.com, thoger@...hat.com Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: cups-browsed remote exploit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The vulnerability that remains in cups-filters 1.0.51 (in the generate_local_queue function, the input sanitization also needs to be used for the host variable, but wasn't used for that) is assigned CVE-2014-4336. This is fixed in cups-filters 1.0.53. This is the vulnerability that exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2707. The second vulnerability addressed in cups-filters 1.0.53 (OOB accesses in the process_browse_data function when reading the packet variable, leading to a crash after a remote attack) is assigned CVE-2014-4337. For the third vulnerability addressed in cups-filters 1.0.53: > - cups-browsed: SECURITY FIX: Fix on usage of the > "BrowseAllow" directive in cups-browsed.conf. Before, if the > argument of a "BrowseAllow" directive is not understood it > is treated as the directive not having been there, allowing > any host if this was the only "BrowseAllow" directive. Now > we treat this as a directive which no host can fulfill, not > allowing any host if it was the only one. the vendor is announcing it as a security fix, so it is assigned CVE-2014-4338. It also seems likely that the previous behavior was actually an implementation error. (Apparently, this only allows attacks against systems for which the administrator created a malformed configuration file. A vendor could instead choose to have an explicit security policy that the product's behavior is undefined in the case of a malformed configuration file.) Two additional notes: > This issue was reported as fixed in 1.0.51: > http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/loggerhead/openprinting/cups-filters/revision/7188 The code fix itself seems to be http://bzr.linuxfoundation.org/loggerhead/openprinting/cups-filters/revision/7189 instead. Also, https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871327 mentions CVE-2014-2707, but the attachment in 871327 is apparently only the CVE-2014-4336 and CVE-2014-4337 patch, not the CVE-2014-2707 patch. However, 871327 isn't directly trying to define what CVE-2014-2707 means, so this can be considered a minor anomaly. - -- CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority M/S M300 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA [ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJToxitAAoJEKllVAevmvmsR4IH/0XLDQd6TouMqkwHjj86tv8D mn3CVcZovqZRQIWBRYj4OlH5sgPyzTGrHR1KVw7FLfe81T3Qwj6eMptZD7qXXbRP ABkTEf+N2HP/7BAh46kCZhpgSvS7QSa9UX41thh1WmBSBSd2cdL2wvdcmkaeapVZ Ip2nT21w/ou1B3yS8NYlVwiAXWj84GclNTbLY31bKVSTd3KSKDKsHa4kCkfEGAlG 4VKGioh4Y1aiBOxnYjerAxBg+nL3Vhq+mH21hTTfPifpg6vKBmtqVMuXuOVQ60Kb uE7MT8HA+SPGSE+84s7fjUVvx95M0j+MQHUEr/Y+QLM2j6qj96/xy1BED6ZxkwA= =1ezq -----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.