[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50804DC3.5000106@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:43:15 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com>,
"Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>,
Attila Bogar <attila.bogar@...guamatics.com>,
Raphael Geissert <geissert@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: CVE Request -- mcrypt: stack-based buffer overflow
by encryption / decryption of overly long file names
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/2012 07:50 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
> Hello Kurt, Steve, vendors,
>
> Attila Bogar reported a stack-based buffer overflow
> in the way MCrypt, a crypt() package and crypt(1) command
> replacement, used to encrypt / decrypt files with overly
> long names (longer than 128 bytes). A remote attacker
> could provide a specially-crafted file that, when processed
> by the mcrypt too, would lead to mcrypt executable crash [*].
>
> A different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4409:
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2012-4409
>
> Note: Using Red Hat bugzilla record for CVE-2012-4409 since
> particular Mitre record is not described yet.
>
> References:
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867790
>
> Patch proposed by Attila:
> [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867790#c0
>
> Reproducer:
> To reproduce let mcrypt encrypt / decrypt file with name
> longer ~128 bytes.
>
> Could you allocate a CVE id for this?
>
> Thank you && Regards, Jan.
> --
> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
>
> [*] FORTIFY_SOURCE protection mechanism would mitigate this
> deficiency to result into crash only. But on systems, without
> FORTIFY_SOURCE protection being applied, the impact might be
> higher.
>
> P.S.: I am not sure about relation of this issue to the issue
> Raphael Geissert reported previously:
> [4] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/10/02/1
>
> so CC-in him too, he to clarify if [2] == [4], or if
> they are yet different issues. Raphael, please clarify.
> Thanks, Jan.
>
Please use CVE-2012-4527 for this issue.
- --
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/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=TH3z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
