[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:26:42 -0500
From: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@...driver.com>
To: <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
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'
or
(for x in {1..200} ; do echo "for x$x in ; do :"; done; for x in {1..200} ; do
echo done ; done) > test-script.sh $ bash test-script.sh
The first one gives me a series of:
bash: line 1: warning: here-document at line 1 delimited by end-of-file (wanted
`EO')
But does not result in a segfault.. (perhaps my memory layout/allocations just
happen to be avoiding that)
And the test-script.sh 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.
