[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b5ad5e7-8bad-4320-8dd4-9f0af17cbdb4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 23:47:30 -0500
From: Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2025-3512: Qt Base QTextMarkdownImporter Front
Matter Buffer Overflow
On 4/24/25 19:08, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:06:26PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> * Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, 2025-04-24 20:32:
>>> There appears to be a growing trend towards calling OOB reads "buffer
>>> overflows".
>> Part of the problem may be that AddressSanitizer uses this unforuntate
>> terminology; you get something like this:
>>
>> ==7802==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address
>> 0xf5f00021 at pc 0xf79c113e bp 0xfff496e8 sp 0xfff492c4
>> READ of size 2 at 0xf5f00021 thread T0
> Yes, this may very well be the main cause of this trend. Is someone
> reading this in a position to change the wording in AddressSanitizer?
> For example, it could have "stack out-of-bounds read" in place of
> "stack-buffer-overflow" above.
On a guess that the same message fragment is used for both reads and
writes, how about "stack-bound-violation" instead of
"stack-buffer-overflow"? It is even the same length.
-- Jacob
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.
