oss-sec mailing list archives
RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less
From: "Radzykewycz, T (Radzy)" <radzy () windriver com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:10:58 +0000
There's no guarantee about anything being "bug free". Even certification by NIAP doesn't guarantee that it's bug free. Nor that it's secure. But it does make it relatively more likely to have fewer bugs and be more secure. Same with OSS tool fuzzing and some kind of database indicating the level of fuzzing that has happened on them. If I were a Linux distro maintainer, looking at packages to include, I would appreciate this information. (For that matter, I'd appreciate it for my own use, though that's less relevant.) If there is a distro maintainer on this list, please chime in. ________________________________________ From: Źmicier Januszkiewicz [gauri () tut by] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:17 AM To: oss-security () lists openwall com Subject: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less 2014-11-18 4:37 GMT+01:00 Robert Watson <robertcwatson1 () gmail com>:
What about using fuzzing to find those tools withOUT vulnerabilities and "certifying them" in some way as safe for all inputs?
I think the main issue with this approach would be that one cannot prove that something DOES NOT exist. One can easily prove that something DOES exist by producing evidence: you can prove a bug exists by providing reproduction steps or a proof-of-concept file that triggers the issue. On the other hand, it would be very problematic to prove a program is bug-free -- what evidence can you bring to support that? Since one can theoretically produce an infinite amount of test cases given e.g. a grammar, how would you test a program against "all inputs"? If it's via fuzzing, who can "certify" that a fuzzer you used indeed produced "all inputs"? Would we need fuzzer certifications, then? I think every time after a product passes an audit, a certification, or whatever, another guy comes about and spots a security issue nobody else has spotted before. Is the product still secure? Does that kind of certification actually mean anything with respect to "having no bugs"? I strongly doubt that. Cheers, Z.
Current thread:
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less, (continued)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Jakub Wilk (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Hanno Böck (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Jakub Wilk (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Alexander Cherepanov (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Daniel Kahn Gillmor (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Robert Watson (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Robert Watson (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Michal Zalewski (Nov 17)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Hanno Böck (Nov 18)
- Re: Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Źmicier Januszkiewicz (Nov 18)
- RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Radzykewycz, T (Radzy) (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Seth Arnold (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Hanno Böck (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Seth Arnold (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Alexander Cherepanov (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Kurt Seifried (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Michal Zalewski (Nov 18)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Gynvael Coldwind (Nov 19)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Joshua Rogers (Nov 19)
- Re: RE: [security-vendor] Re: [oss-security] Fuzzing findings (and maybe CVE requests) - Image/GraphicsMagick, elfutils, GIMP, gdk-pixbuf, file, ndisasm, less Sven Kieske (Nov 20)