oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE request for catfish program


From: "Vincent Danen" <vdanen () redhat com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:28:47 -0700

On 02/25/2014, at 11:18 AM, cve-assign () mitre org wrote:

I was looking at the installed script on a Fedora 19 box

Apparently the situation is that the Fedora catfish.spec file
generates the duplicate checks for $APPNAME.py. It's uncommon to have
different CVE mappings for Fedora-shipped versions versus upstream
versions, but in this case we'll proceed to do that because the CVE
abstraction was already stated that way, and the attack vectors are
actually different.

catfish.py in the current working directory - Use CVE-2014-2093.

catfish.pyc in the current working directory - Use CVE-2014-2094.

bin/catfish.pyc under the current working directory - Use
CVE-2014-2095.

bin/catfish.py under the current working directory - Use
CVE-2014-2096.

If someone installs the upstream version of either catfish 0.4.0.2 or
catfish 0.8.2, they get a script that unsafely looks for both
catfish.pyc and catfish.py.

If someone installs either the Fedora 19 catfish-0.4.0.2-2 package or
the Fedora 20 catfish-0.8.2-1 package, they get a script that unsafely
looks for only catfish.py (twice).

This apparently occurs because of:

[Fedora 19 catfish.spec]
%{__sed} -i.byte \
      -e 's|pyc|py|' \
      %{name}.in

[Fedora 20 catfish.spec]
%{__sed} -i.byte \
      -e 's|pyc|py|' \
      bin/%{name}.in.in

We don't know why that was done. (Maybe Fedora has a policy against
certain uses of .pyc files, and this policy is implemented in
the .spec files of various packages?)

This specific case isn't very interesting because every one of the
mentioned versions of catfish on every platform is actually
vulnerable. However, probably no Fedora advisory should map to either
CVE-2014-2094 or CVE-2014-2095.

AFAIK there is no policy.  This may be something the maintainer chose to do for some unknown reason.

Thanks for all this extra analysis.  I've updated our bug with the new and proper CVEs for this issue.

-- 
Vincent Danen / Red Hat Security Response Team

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Current thread: