Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:34:07 +0200
From: Jan Lieskovsky <>
To: "Steven M. Christey" <>
Subject: CVE Request -- libtiff [was: Re: libtiff buffer
 underflow in LZWDecodeCompat]

Hello Steve,

  could you please allocate a new CVE id for this buffer underwrite

Thanks && regards, Jan.
Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team

On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:14 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> * [2009-06-21 17:14:24 -0700] Kees Cook wrote:
> >A crafted TIFF can crash libtiff in LZWDecodeCompat via underflow (different
> >from CVE-2008-2327).
> >
> >Based on discussions[1] and a quick analysis[2], I don't think this is
> >exploitable, but it does lead to crashes in any application using libtiff.
> >I've reported it upstream[3], with the attached patch.
> >
> >Has anyone else looked this over?
> >
> >-Kees
> >
> >[1]
> >[2]
> >[3]
> You saw that a new comment was posted to [3] that points to an earlier
> bug and a different patch, right?  Looks like it was just updated today,
> to point to this bug report from january:
> Also, that report seems to agree with your quick analysis:
> "However, the previous patch does appear to prevent a payload of more than one distinct byte,
> making this effectively useless as a code injection vector. Nonetheless, it
> still is effective at crashing applications that use LibTIFF."
> In fact, I think the reporter of that bug was one of the writers in the
> forum notes you're showing, particularly based on this comment
> where he indicates it isn't exploitable and that he filed a bug:

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.