oss-security - Re: CVE: Input validation failure affecting multiple KDE applications, as well as many other Qt-based applications

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1266197184.1685454.1311969185062.JavaMail.root@zmail01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:53:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Josh Bressers <bressers@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: KDE Security Team <security@....org>, security@...nokia.com,
        Tim Brown <timb@...-dimension.org.uk>,
        "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE: Input validation failure affecting multiple
 KDE applications, as well as many other Qt-based applications

----- Original Message -----
> On 07/27/2011 04:57 PM, Steven M. Christey wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> The Arora and Rekonq web browsers are also vulnerable to the same
> >> attack vector, and other Qt-based programs may be as well. We're
> >> working with the Qt team to help enhance their documentation to warn
> >> developers to take care sanitizing their inputs, but it's not actually
> >> a Qt flaw.  So we're a bit unsure how to proceed here.
> >
> > This sounds like a limitation of the Qt API, which can be avoided by
> > programmers who are aware of the limitation. Kind of like how strcpy()
> > can be subject to buffer overflows, *if* the programmer isn't careful.
> > Also happened with confusing return values from certain OpenSSL API
> > functions a couple years ago. (The PHP_SELF example is similar.) So,
> > this should probably get separate CVEs for each application/library
> > that misuses the relevant function(s).
> 
> That sounds good. On the KDE side, this is kdelibs, Kleopatra, and
> Konqueror.
> 
> > If Qt itself contains misuse of its own functions - which happens
> > sometimes (CVE-2008-5077 for OpenSSL) - then Qt might need its own CVE,
> > too.
> 
> As far as I'm aware Qt itself is not affected, but we've not done an
> exhaustive analysis.
> 

OK, this one is going to get messy. If you folks want to keep this under
embargo, please contact me in private for IDs (I don't want to try and keep
track on a public list, I'm already unsure what all needs IDs).

If this isn't terribly serious, it may make the most sense to publish
details so we can figure out how many IDs are needed.

Thanks.

-- 
    JB

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.