oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer () redhat com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:31:19 +0100
On 02/23/2015 10:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 23 Feb, Florian Weimer wrote :Missing Java Security Manager sandboxing mechanism / feature in the org.videolan.BDJLoader classThe code corresponding to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959433 is gone from newer release. You should upgrade, since we don't support old releases.
Still needs CVE assignment, though.
As for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959434 "Fixing it would not change anything. Xlet (that requests the mount, or is being executed from the mount) could as well uncompress the files by self where it wants, even download other files from internet." So, maybe you want to have a full Xlet sandboxing? Or is it something else?
Yes, I do think full sandboxing is required because content publishers have attacked end user system integrity in the past, so I don't think they can be trusted. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
Current thread:
- CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Florian Weimer (Feb 23)
- Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Jean-Baptiste Kempf (Feb 23)
- Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Florian Weimer (Feb 23)
- Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Jean-Baptiste Kempf (Feb 23)
- Re: Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Sven Schwedas (Feb 23)
- Re: Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Florian Weimer (Mar 01)
- Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Florian Weimer (Feb 23)
- Re: CVE request: BD-J implementation in libbluray Jean-Baptiste Kempf (Feb 23)