[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131105235033.GC2471@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:50:33 -0700
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request: additional fix for CVE-2012-2825
libxslt crash
* [2013-11-05 23:29:08 +0100] Marcus Meissner wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:17:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Vincent Danen:
>>
>> > The reason this doesn't crash for me on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 which
>> > ships 1.1.17 is because we included this patch (well, the developer did)
>> > a day after the initial build with the comment:
>> >
>> > - CVE-2012-2825 requires an extra patch on 1.1.17
>> >
>> > So, I think this does require a second CVE.
>>
>> Has anyone shipped an incomplete update? If yes, then I think we
>> actually need a second CVE. In the past, we got them for similar
>> cases, and at least Debian's tracking more or less assumes that it's
>> possible to assign CVEs to deal with such corner cases.
>
>SUSE did, otherwise we would not have noticed :/
Heh.
The other point is that CVE-2012-2825 affected before and after 1.1.25,
whereas this one really only affects < 1.1.25 so it's either a different
flaw or that commit (fixed in 1.1.25) is actually an incomplete fix, and
CVE-2012-2825 is the "fix of the fix" CVE.
--
Vincent Danen / 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.
