[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151202225938.BC7C36C0805@smtpvmsrv1.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:59:38 -0500 (EST)
From: cve-assign@...re.org
To: carnil@...ian.org
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Heap Overflow in PCRE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
> I have a question about CVE-2015-8384, according to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287623 the fixing commit
> in upstream VCS is r1558, but (cf.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287623#c6) CVE-2015-3210
> was assigned for the issue fixed by the same revision r1558.
We currently plan to keep CVE-2015-3210 and CVE-2015-8384 separate.
We'll try to answer the question in three ways:
1. Different attack methodologies discovered independently can have
separate CVE IDs, even if the fix is the same. We don't know of
any scalable way to reach a conclusion that
/^(?P=B)((?P=B)(?J:(?P<B>c)(?P<B>a(?P=B)))>WGXCREDITS)/ (which
is CVE-2015-3210) and /(?J)(?'d'(?'d'\g{d}))/ (which is
CVE-2015-8384) are the same attack methodology.
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226918#c9 indicates
that the CVE-2015-3210 attack is prevented by a commit for
"Fix buffer overflow for named recursive back reference."
Our experience is that Red Hat generally has a good process for
locating commits based on the associated bug reports; however,
we sometimes don't know how they reach a specific conclusion.
3. The pattern in question for CVE-2015-3210, i.e., the
/^(?P=B)((?P=B)(?J:(?P<B>c)(?P<B>a(?P=B)))>WGXCREDITS)/ pattern,
doesn't have any instances of something like \1 or \g that
are commonly used for a back reference. Although we haven't
studied the pattern in detail, we think the attack methodology
is different from the one that has a \g escape sequence.
- --
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=3oE2
-----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.
