[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54247005.40803@case.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:41:57 -0400
From: Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@...e.edu>
To: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...gle.com>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: chet.ramey@...e.edu, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-6271: remote code execution through bash
On 9/25/14, 3:39 PM, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@...e.edu> wrote:
>> On 9/25/14, 12:15 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think of distros' going with Florian's prefix-suffix patch
>>> right now? I think it breaks function imports/exports between
>>> pre-patch and post-patch bash versions, but keeps them intact for
>>> patched versions. Right? If so, this sounds acceptable for immediate
>>> use by distros. Do you agree?
>>
>> I haven't looked at that particular patch in detail yet, but I am wondering
>> why adding both a prefix and a suffix is better than just adding a prefix.
>>
>
> I think it's just paranoia, it demonstrates significant enough control
> over the environment that it's unlikely someone could construct it via
> a naive cgi environment or similar. If someone can create variables
> with an arbitrary suffix and prefix, then there are likely bigger
> problems to worry about than what bash is doing. FWIW, I like
> Florian's approach.
Yeah, that general approach is probably the best. I was just wondering.
I don't really see the need to use a prefix and a suffix, though.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@...e.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
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.
