[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:34:42 +0200
From: Maksymilian A <max@...t.cx>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: mmcallis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: issues in ISO C++ 2011 regex library
Not taking into account the vulnerabilities prior to gcc 4.9.1, one
CVE can be considered reasonable assignment CVE for a missing
implementation of error_stack error_space and error_complexity. Lack
of protection against resource exhaustion in official release, will
lead to situations like in glibc.
proftpd glibc remote denial of service exploit
http://cert.cx/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c
There is many vendors what uses remotely RE.
Maksymilian Arciemowicz
http://cxsecurity.com/
2014-08-07 9:56 GMT+02:00 Murray McAllister <mmcallis@...hat.com>:
> On 08/06/2014 04:36 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 03:50:32PM +1000, Murray McAllister wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Maksymilian Arciemowicz reported a number of issues in the ISO C++
>>> 2011 regex libraries:
>>>
>>> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2014/Aug/1
>>>
>>> Bugs:
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
>>>
>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20291
>>>
>>> For the memory corruption bug (61582), there seems to be more than
>>> one issue here (at least a heap-based buffer overflow and a stack
>>> overflow of some sort). Can a single CVE be assigned, or do you need
>>> specific details for each issue (I don't currently have those)?
>>>
>>> With GCC 4.8 in Fedora, the affected program needs to be compiled
>>> using the "-std=c++11" option.
>>
>>
>> I think this issue is mis-named. "The ISO C++ 2011 regex library" is a
>> specfication, not an implementation, and a vulnerability in it would
>> be a fundamental flaw in the API design (analogous to gets in C). It
>> seems like this CVE request is for one or more GCC/libstdc++ bugs, and
>> it should be identified as such.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing that out, and sorry for the confusion!
>
> There is some discussion in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126691 about why these should
> not be treated as security issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Murray McAllister / Red Hat Product Security
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.
