Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: Vulnerability in the Xt library
From: mcn () remise ORG (Mike Neuman)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:21:37 -0600
This pretty much depends on how doprnt works (also, the vs 3 compiler from Sun has different stack allocations, depending on the optimization).
You're right. My data point was from a Solaris 1.x system, which appears to be invulnerable to this specific attack for the sprintf() format overflow reason. (Hmmm, reason not to upgrade? :-) ) Actually, it seems the BSD _doprnt (including the 4.4BSD equivalent vfprintf() ) will continue until they encounter a '\0' (or segfault), which probably means they are somewhat less vulnerable. Thanks for the clarification. -Mike mcn () EnGarde com
Current thread:
- Re: BUG in /bin/bash, (continued)
- Re: BUG in /bin/bash Digital Dreamer (Aug 22)
- Re: BUG in /bin/bash Earle Ake (Aug 22)
- IE 3.0? InterAccess Support Manager (Aug 22)
- Re: IE 3.0? Dave Andersen (Aug 23)
- More on the UnixWare problem Todd Vierling (Aug 23)
- resolv+ and finger... C. Hodges (Aug 23)
- Vulnerability in the Xt library Aleph One (Aug 24)
- Re: Vulnerability in the Xt library Stefan `Sec` Zehl (Aug 25)
- Re: Vulnerability in the Xt library Mike Neuman (Aug 27)
- Re: Vulnerability in the Xt library Casper Dik (Aug 28)
- Re: Vulnerability in the Xt library Mike Neuman (Aug 28)
- RFD: libsuid VaX#n8 (Aug 24)
- More on UnixWare 2.x vulnerability Todd Vierling (Aug 24)
- Re: (WORKAROUND) More on UnixWare 2.x vulnerability Hannu Laurila (Aug 24)
- polyglots (multi-language programs) John Nemeth (Aug 24)