[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130122072522.GA16211@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:25:23 +0100
From: Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: CVE Request coreutils
Hi,
Generally, I see your point. However sometimes services running as
root 'sort' or 'uniq' user input e.g. via grepping logfiles etc,
so there is indeed a real chance to indirectly trigger a privilege
escalation. The past shows that segfaults can be turned into a
code exec often. Its a stack overflow after all.
regards,
Sebastian
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 06:33:07PM -0700, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/21/2013 01:39 PM, Vincent Danen wrote:
> > * [2013-01-21 19:17:49 +0100] Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> >
> >>> Can someone assign a CVE id for a buffer overflow in
> >>> coreutils? Its the same code snippet (coreutils-i18n.patch) and
> >>> it affects sort, uniq and join:
> >>>
> >>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798538
> >>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796243
> >>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798541
> >>
> >> Could you send the faulty patch to the list so that distros can
> >> validate that they don't include it themselves?
> >
> > Red Hat/Fedora do include this patch, so it's more than just SUSE
> > that ships them. However, when I was looking at them last week,
> > this struck me as just a non-exploitable crash and unless I'm
> > missing something, I think it would be quite the stretch to call it
> > a security flaw.
>
> Agreed, there is no significant impact of exploitation and there is no
> real easy way to trick a victim into doing this (and even if you do,
> so what? now if it was code exec we might be talking about something
> interesting).
>
> - --
> 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)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ/exTAAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTrW0P/3B/L/SE7akzCPUU6TW9wy1L
> Rpb8IIITLCz1qkb/gkUayUFJHQDjpEfmxNPJQWm1fJBrWI0bFr0wvHRuGHgyXZEA
> Bl+js2w0uu7kAEEf1bHjZjf7zVHZ2tvoAdzi8ypLASZisxXwSa4acy++sqmPTrSf
> oNOu3ChqG919VSLfD8Zf5AsGFs6G3tRzNEmYtvllt9liUFKgL6WsCNWNWUZdpWm2
> crZPdyf343VvQcG5p7vYPEJLUBmnUSIauakssYPxGSp1vNBDNCC8xuVnyf1KOLfc
> r3BHDPRX5ooe8EcoK/zgo1owK7tP9d7FT94gIsJte3OUOP5dq6LR/R0ZMMUsneNA
> EjJScDCkh0hcZYCdJkqtah5aoAYI6IQvXJVtbwDM+rAvHfoMV2nkbWVZL0SgCMW/
> B/hvhQJejFN3dd0wfiO5sQf5o2UxxYyIIpTE+GQP/pe8Q7F1BzR5nV87Jd3sWQY8
> J873KRADBgt4RwbVUpI7dUL67UeRZCN4FiNtYYEuD5BeJWMSVoVXRHP7zBkx8GhG
> vgfUc02+IyxS0HTO5HIxSJnLYOSa++SxJ4/w85aqcWPLrLHhL4s1k4GELPg/JhdW
> Um35zAkcLNnxsxySCMIWZKEUTZ3xdpBspc3QVkw/IoyZpk+QhQTM2S/C3yWv4Q0z
> xwHEEqesvl8l7UlpQ2mC
> =rw4/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
~ perl self.pl
~ $_='print"\$_=\47$_\47;eval"';eval
~ krahmer@...e.de - SuSE Security 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.
