Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:01:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: jhead

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tomas Hoger wrote:

> Looks like -latest tarball was updated again and now mentions 2.86
> inside.  In that, usage of mkstemp was replaced with mktemp (previous
> version failed to close file descriptors opened by mkstemp, probably
> causing issues when trying to use command on large pile of images at
> once).  Those the temp file seem to be created user-specified
> destination directory, probably not too likely to be /tmp (and hence
> prone to races).
> Anyway, can anyone help me understand what was CVE-2008-4639 assigned
> to?  I tried looking at the diff between 2.7 and 2.84 and fail to see
> any relevant change...

I anchored on this:

which is John Dong's answer to an inquiry I had for how many CVEs to

>> = Steve
> = John
>> 1 - long -cmd
>> 2 - unsafe temp file creation
>> 3 - "more unchecked buffers" and "unsafe buffer sized strcat's in
>>    ModifyDescriptComment"  [this assumes that upstream only fixed
>>    issue 1)
>> 4 - shell escapes
>So, bottom line is I think 2.84 fixes 1 and 3 acceptably, while 2 and 4
>are still unresolved.

So CVE-2008-4641 was assigned to issue 4, and CVE-2008-4639 was assigned
to issue 2.  However, I made a mistake in CVE-2008-4639 and said "before
2.84" instead of "2.84 and earlier."  I've since fixed the CVE-2008-4639
description to say ""2.84 and earlier."

Now what's this about 2.86?... Sounds like it may be a regression.

- Steve

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.