[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110830181140.GE26298@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:11:46 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-request(?): squid: buffer overflow in Gopher
reply parser
* [2011-08-29 13:48:17 +0200] Matthias Weckbecker wrote:
>Hi,
>
>squid 3.x seems to have re-introduced a security issue found by Ben Hawkes of
>the Google Security Team in 2005,
>
> 2011: http://www.squid-cache.org/Advisories/SQUID-2011_3.txt
> 2005: http://www.squid-cache.org/Advisories/SQUID-2005_1.txt (CVE-2005-0094)
>
>Will there be a new CVE required? Not quite sure how such "special" cases are
>handled usually.
Does anyone know when this was re-introduced? The upstream advisory
indicates all 3.0 releases are affected, but doesn't indicate if 2.x
(after 2.5.STABLE7) was at any point vulnerable.
--
Vincent Danen / Red Hat Security Response Team
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.
