[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1008161312520.1035@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Minor security flaw with pam_xauth
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Tim Brown wrote:
> I don't think this needs a CVE as I haven't found a useful way to exploit it
> but maybe someone on here will spot something I've missed. Either way, I
> would have thought it should be fixed.
If the attacker can execute an 'extra' process in violation of
RLIMIT_NPROC, then that would be technically a violation of the *intended*
security policy, so it would count for CVE inclusion by itself - even if
you can't manipulate the issue for code execution. (Though somehow
manipulating the xauth authority file may be fruitful to mess around with
the display as root.)
Thoughts?
- 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.
