[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55265E1D.4050404@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:10:21 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, marc.deslauriers@...onical.com
CC: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request: libX11: buffer overflow in MakeBigReq
macro
On 04/09/2015 09:09 AM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>> The MakeBigReq macro in libX11 contained a 4-byte buffer overflow:
>
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56508
>
>> Fixed by the following commit in libX11 1.5.99.901:
>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/commit/?id=39547d600a13713e15429f49768e54c3173c828d
>
> (for the "#ifdef LONG64")
>> - memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, _BRlen << 2); \
>> + memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, (_BRlen - 1) << 2); \
>
> (for the "else")
>> - memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, _BRlen << 2); \
>> + memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, (_BRlen - 1) << 2); \
>
> Use CVE-2013-7439.
Does this assignment cover application code which has to be recompiled
because it included an expansion of broken macro?
(The question is hypothetical. I could find copies of the header file,
but not actual users of the macro.)
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
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.
