Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:41:18 -0400
From: Giancarlo Canales <gcanalesb@...com>
To: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Cc: "cve-assign@...re.org" <cve-assign@...re.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Possible CVE Request: Multiple stack overflows
 in squashfs-tools and sasquatch

Yes, that is correct. 

Thanks.

> On Jun 18, 2015, at 12:20 PM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
>> Sasquatch is an experimental fork of squashfs-tools.
>> I'm requesting a CVE number for this vulnerability, per project.
> 
> CVE assignments typically cannot be done that way.
> 
>> https://github.com/devttys0/sasquatch/pull/5
> 
> As far as we can tell, there are two independent types of problems:
> 
>  - "int bytes" is incorrect because the return value of
>    SQUASHFS_FRAGMENT_BYTES can be larger than the maximum
>    value of a signed int
> 
>  - pull/5 says "If we fix this by making the variable size_t, we run
>    into an unrelated problem in which the stack VLA allocation of
>    fragment_table_index[] can easily exceed RLIMIT_STACK" but
>    actually RLIMIT_STACK can be exceeded regardless of the data type
>    of the bytes variable
> 
> We understand that the pull request is only intended to be an example
> code change, not a comprehensive code change to all affected
> functions.
> 
> This type of fork situation can have up to six CVEs:
> 
> 1 - all "int where size_t is correct" issues that occur only in squashfs-tools
> 
> 2 - all "int where size_t is correct" issues that occur only in sasquatch
> 
> 3 - all "int where size_t is correct" issues that occur in both squashfs-tools and sasquatch
> 
> 4 - all "exceeding RLIMIT_STACK" issues that occur only in squashfs-tools
> 
> 5 - all "exceeding RLIMIT_STACK" issues that occur only in sasquatch
> 
> 6 - all "exceeding RLIMIT_STACK" issues that occur in both squashfs-tools and sasquatch
> 
> We would guess that the most likely case is that only 3 and 6 are
> applicable, i.e., the code problems are found only in
> unsquash-1.c/unsquash-2.c/unsquash-3.c/unsquash-4.c and all of these
> files exist in both squashfs-tools and sasquatch. Is this correct?
> 
> - -- 
> 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)
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgu8IAAoJEKllVAevmvms4iAH/2jSsPzoTZ4CPOCHDte6TuWr
> 1S02rSBvhaQ0HngavjC66y7EAdUK98SZpDeLwN9XP2o/jyhm8YMjcqgaJ/Kerf6s
> W1QhG8Bq3h4bLiGLOWNteqCt3YinB8KNAppqXI8/zpFWH9SSHaAu0EYp5bS6Pqvz
> ldan3rWvLCojwH/cfLWCPjUCi4dYPVN60x631WpH5Fg9ysLrlPLcFNpnBH17t+ul
> k9tHS1YSox3AfdMjN1snzPalwpXqc2Qz3AlmrmeB/4YGaW7D1+fAOIr2jKEbbTUN
> fk/7Nk86Keo2vp4nHavIwtuaYYB9g6AjP/nVsdzQAoITzz9yvwFp9xklHoUbtnM=
> =YsiJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

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.