oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:19:23 -0700
On 01/19/2012 09:27 PM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
On 01/18/2012 11:17 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote: On 01/18/2012 11:17 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote:On 01/17/2012 12:46 AM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:On 01/16/2012 01:19 AM, Kurt Seifried wrote:I agree in principle, however in practice this is a lot of work (as you well know =). I guess my question/concern would be is who does the research to verify all this, and what if it varies by version (i.e. it is 6 separate issues in an older version but the newer version combined some code into a common library for example so it's only a single issue, but with multiple avenues of attack/etc.). In other words a lot of potential work.I did some research, with details available at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773726#c2 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773726#c3 In my opinion only 1 and 2 (ie ws bug 6663 and ws bug 6670) should be allocated a CVE. Others are application crashes.Ok doke, so we already got CVE-2012-0041 Assigned for all of these. I slightly re-ordered them from the info at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773726 and an irc chat to confirm: ====== Type-cast error: Caused because of casting unsigned to signed int (ws bug 6663). This leaves the app in an unstable state. - 1. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6663 This is a type cast issue, caused because of casting an unsigned int to signed int. In the unfixed version this would throw an exception which the application would catch, but leave it in an unstable state. The patch makes sure that the value passed was less than G_MAXINT Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40164 ======= Application crash/Dos because of trying to allocate too large a buffer size (ws bug 6666, 6667, 6669). - 2. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6666 5Views file format DoS due to request to allocate too large a buffer size. Normally glib should terminate the application with something like "GLib-ERROR **: gmem.c:239: failed to allocate 3221228094 bytes" Resolved by clamping the value of packet_size Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40165 3. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6667 Same problem and solution but with i4b capture format now Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40166 5. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6669 Similar issue with netmon file format. Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40168 ======= Integer underflow causing too large buffer to be allocated and a crash (ws bug 6668). - 4. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6668 Same problem and solution but with iptrace capture format. Also some checks for bad file format. Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40167 ======= Memory corruption (buffer-overflow) when reading novell capture file format. glibc however detects this and terminates the application (ws bug 6670) - 6. https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6670 Similar issue with netmon file format. Patch: http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=40169 ======= So we already have one CVE assigned for all these, my thought would be to use CVE-2012-0041 for the first one (6663) and assign new CVE's for the rest. Comments/questions?You are correct, we may need to split this into 4 parts: 6663 - typecast flaw
Please continue to use CVE-2012-0041 for this issue (6663)
6666, 6667, 6669 - Dos due to too large buffer alloc requst
Please use CVE-2012-0066 for these issues (6666, 6667, 6669)
6668 - Dos due to integer underflow and too large buffer alloc. request
Please use CVE-2012-0067 for this issue (6668)
6670 - memory corruption due to buffer underflow
Please use CVE-2012-0068 for this issue (6670) -- -- Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
Current thread:
- CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Agostino Sarubbo (Jan 11)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 11)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Steven M. Christey (Jan 11)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 11)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Steven M. Christey (Jan 12)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Steven M. Christey (Jan 11)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Jan 12)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 15)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Jan 16)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 17)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Jan 19)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 19)
- Re: CVE request: Wireshark multiple vulnerabilities Kurt Seifried (Jan 11)