Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure

["Steven M. Christey" <coley () linus mitre org>]

I think this technically qualifies as an "exposure" which is the "E" in 
"CVE" - it can be used as a stepping stone for exploitation of another 
vulnerability.  (Very old, unwieldy definitions here: 
http://cve.mitre.org/about/terminology.html)

The risk may be very minimal, but the FORTIFY_SOURCE protection mechanism 
is not working "as advertised" - it can be manipulated for an 
admittedly-small information leak.

Use CVE-2010-3192 for the issue.

- Steve


On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Josh Bressers wrote:

> ----- "Nico Golde" <oss-security+ml () ngolde de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399
> > did this ever get a CVE id? As this also works for setuid programs it
> > would be
> > nice to get one assigned and have this patched.
>
> Steve,
>
> What is MITRE policy on this one. By itself I question if this is a
> security flaw, but it also would appear to have the potential to turn a DoS
> into something worse.
>
> I'm not sure what policy is in this instance.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>    JB