Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [ruby-core:63604] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10019] [Open] segmentation fault/buffer overrun in pack.c (encodes)

Hash: SHA1

> Is MITRE or Red Hat going to assign a CVE for it?

We haven't yet been able to determine whether the discussion is about
two separate vulnerabilities. says:

  ruby -v: ruby 2.1.2p168 (2014-07-06 revision 46721) [i386-mingw32]


  While working with an AWS sample I hit a segmentation fault. The
  same sample works under 1.9.3.

First, we don't know what "The same sample works under 1.9.3" means.
It might mean "The same AWS sample is also a working vulnerability
reproducer when using Ruby 1.9.3." It might instead mean "With this
AWS sample, my program works normally when using Ruby 1.9.3; in other
words, no vulnerability is observed." says:

  Anyway, whatever the reporter is referring to, he mentions it
  doesn't occur in 1.9.3, and looking at 1.9.3, the only related
  differences I immediately noticed are the absence of the check at in pack_pack
  function and padding being an int (instead of char) in the encodes

These differences in pack.c obviously aren't the same as (and
aren't expected to be the same as) the pack.c code changes in
Revision 46778 (aka the

(We realize that 1.9.3 is of interest because it is the "Old stable"
distribution advertised on the page.)

Is one of these scenarios the correct interpretation?

  1. There is only one vulnerability. Version 2.1.2 is an example of
     an affected version. Version 1.9.3 is an example of a
     non-affected version.

  2. There is only one vulnerability. Version 2.1.2 is an example of
     an affected version. Version 1.9.3 is also an example of an
     affected version.

  3. A vulnerability in pack.c was fixed during Ruby 1.x development,
     but then a regression occurred during Ruby 2.x development, and
     the vulnerability is present in, for example, version 2.1.2.
     (A regression would generally mean that two CVE IDs are

  4. The Ruby 1.x pack.c and the Ruby 2.x pack.c are vulnerable in
     substantially different ways, requiring different fixes.
     (Again, this would generally mean that two CVE IDs are

We don't require that the set of affected versions is precisely
determined before a CVE assignment. Narrowing it down to one of the
above scenarios is probably required because otherwise the correct
number of CVE IDs isn't known.

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through ]
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)


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.