[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50410498.2090709@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:38:16 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: Raphael Geissert <geissert@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: php header() header injection detection bypass
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/29/2012 12:26 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reviewing a list of CVE ids that were assigned from the Debian CNA
> pool, I noticed there is one [id] for php5 that hasn't been made
> public yet the issue has already been re-re-reported and in this
> one last round finally fixed.
>
> I'm talking about https://bugs.php.net/60227
>
> It was independently reported by two persons but as of this time
> their reports (#54182 and #54006) are still hidden behind the
> "security bug" curtain of PHP's bug tracker. Back when they were
> reported, I had assigned the following id: CVE-2011-1398 "header
> injection detection bypass." Note that the id only applies to the
> CR bypass part of the issue.
>
> Then it came this other report (#60227, originally reported as
> #60028 by the same person but tagged security, which hid it too),
> which lead to finally fixing the bug (but please beware of the
> original fix by reading [1]).
>
> Unless I missed something, the CR bypass issue was never assigned a
> CVE id once it became public. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.php.devel/70584
>
> Cheers,
>
Apologies in advance for my questions but I'm a bit confused (also I
don't have access to PHP security bugs so I'm a bit in the dark here).
1) I don't see #54182 and #54006 in the PHP ChangeLog, have these been
fixed?
Assuming they were fixed at some point this leads me to ask:
2) Are you saying that the "header injection detection bypass" wasn't
completely fixed by the patches for #54182 and #54006, and then
someone reported #60227, originally reported as #60028 which has been
fixed needs a second CVE (e.g. the "an incomplete fix for original
issue led to a second fix being pushed" thing)?
Or am I getting this completely wrong (this is also possible).
- --
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/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=GTXS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
