[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100826102925.76628c88@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:29:25 +0200
From: Tomas Hoger <thoger@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request: ghostscript and gv
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:23:34 +0200 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > - some ghostscript versions search CWD even when started with -P-
>
> ... as it turned out neither a) nor b) actually solve the problem:
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691350#c11
>
> So fixing gs must be part of the solution always. That's
> http://svn.ghostscript.com/viewvc?view=rev&revision=11352
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
> Therefore up to three CVE numbers could be assigned
> a) insecure default of gs
> b) applications don't pass -P-
> c) non working -P-/SEARCH_HERE_FIRST
>
> Fixing a) means b) isn't needed but then it's just a compile time
> default that may or may not be changed by distros.
>
> Both a) and b) imply a fix for c) though. No idea if a separate CVE
> is actually useful in that case.
b) is likely to require per-application CVE. With the changed default,
one won't need to care about them though. I agree c) should better get
a separate CVE if it's not what CVE-2010-2055 text already tries to
describe, given the "related to improper support for the -P- option"
part.
--
Tomas Hoger / 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.
