Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:26:42 -0500
From: Mark Hatle <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: [security-vendor] Re: Fwd: Non-upstream patches
 for bash

On 9/25/14, 5:13 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 14-09-25 01:49 PM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Based on the current situation and the fact that there is confusion about what
>> patch to use for the bash issue. I wanted to post this here.
>> We have found a few more issues (OOB memory access). Also I am posting Florain's
>> patch here which should fix the issue in a more deeper way rather than just
>> apply duct-tape.
> Could we please get two CVE numbers assigned for the two OOB memory issues?

Using the two patches, CVE-2014-6271 and the one line eol-pushback.patch, I am 
not able to reproduce what I expect should be happing with bash 4.2.

Should I be seeing a problem with the reproducers that were mentioned in an 
earlier piece of this thread, either:

bash -c 'true <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF
<<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF <<EOF'


(for x in {1..200} ; do echo "for x$x in ; do :"; done; for x in {1..200} ; do 
echo done ; done) > $ bash

The first one gives me a series of:

bash: line 1: warning: here-document at line 1 delimited by end-of-file (wanted 

But does not result in a segfault.. (perhaps my memory layout/allocations just 
happen to be avoiding that)

And the runs w/o segfault or other error being present.. again 
maybe I'm lucky?

(Or am I simply missing something in the reproducer steps?)

Mark Hatle
Wind River Systems

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.