oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: Cve issue discussion


From: Marcus Meissner <meissner () suse de>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:37:56 +0200

Hi,

if it could crash the image reader I would consider it "remote denial of service"
classed and CVE worthy. 

Ciao, Marcus
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:15:14AM -0400, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
Do memory-exhaustion bugs get a CVE?  Suppose an application is fooled
into requesting 2Gb of memory but then never uses it other than
attempting to read it, immediately hitting EOF, and cleaning up.

I'm addressing such a bug in libpng right now, in which the user
is sent a PNG file containing a tEXt chunk that claims to have a 2GB
length (but none of the 2GB data is included in the PNG).  On my
platform libpng deals with that almost instantaneously, but I think
some platforms (ASAN builds?) would actually allocate the memory
before proceeding to read the data.

Glenn


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:47 AM, ne xo <nexo123 () outlook kr> wrote:
Hello,

thank you for the reply!

I chose the report at random.

I'm sorry if I was offended to mention the report.

Thanks.
<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
________________________________
보낸 사람: Agostino Sarubbo <ago () gentoo org>
보낸 날짜: 2017년 8월 7일 월요일 오후 4:42:05
받는 사람: oss-security () lists openwall com
제목: Re: [oss-security] Cve issue discussion

On Monday 07 August 2017 01:03:53 ne xo wrote:
Hello,


I am curious about issuing CVEs.

I can see that a "NULL pointer dereference" or a bug where the exploit has
not been verified also get a CVE.


heap-overflows may or may not be exploitable.


It takes a lot of time to analyze the exploit and create the exploit code.


Is it right to be assigned a CVE only if it is exploitable?


Or do you think all bugs need to get a CVE?


Thanks.

---

ref

---

[1]http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/04/10/17 - NULL pointer
dereference
[2]http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/04/10/15 -
memory allocation failure

Hi.

Since you mentioned some issues reported by me, let me answer directly.
For the first, it is an undefined behavior, so actually you don't see the
crash.
Nowadays, the undefined behavior issues do not get anymore a CVE.


For the second, ASAN reports that the program want to use more that 64GB of
ram to execute the process so ASAN hangs the process. In this case is up to
the maintainer check whether there is a problem in the code or not, or it is
expected. The better double-check would be verify what happens without ASAN.

I'd like also to mention that MITRE assigns CVE after they analyze the
reported issue, so if an issue does not deserve a CVE, MITRE probably won't
assign accompanied by an explanation.

--
Agostino Sarubbo
Gentoo Linux Developer


-- 
Marcus Meissner,SUSE LINUX GmbH; Maxfeldstrasse 5; D-90409 Nuernberg; Zi. 3.1-33,+49-911-740 
53-432,,serv=loki,mail=wotan,type=real <meissner () suse de>


Current thread: