Re: Re: Debian / xterm #779397

[Simon McVittie <smcv () debian org>]

On 03/03/15 09:19, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> | From: "Kurt Seifried" <kseifried () redhat com>
> | 
> | $ xterm -S/dev/pts/20
> | *** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/bin/xterm terminated
> |
> | Did this get a CVE? I don't see a DSA for xterm.
>
> no - someone mentioned the problem in an email - nothing more was said

There's some discussion on the Debian bug about whether this should be
considered to be a security vulnerability, or just a bug. Not every
buffer overflow is a vulnerability: it can only be a vulnerability if an
attacker can trigger it.

Is there any reason why it would be useful/sensible to pass untrusted
(pseudo-terminal filename, fd) pairs to the -S option? It seems to me
that if you're passing partially or entirely attacker-controlled
filenames to this option, you have probably already lost.

    S