oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: memory safety bugs in bc
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg () fifthhorseman net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:38:14 -0500
On Thu 2018-11-29 23:12:55 +0100, Hanno Böck wrote:
The idea here is that "mild" memory safety violations (invalid reads, nullptr) don't get security treatment if they're in a standalone tool, yet they do if they're in a library, which may have larger implications in more complex apps.
Sure, i understand how memory errors in libraries offer a much larger "attack surface" than errors in code called across a process boundary. However, i am used to looking at a lot of code that calls across process boundaries (hello, GnuPG!) and i can tell you that there's a lot of software out there that doesn't cope well with (or, maybe worse, doesn't even notice) surprising terminations, surprising output on certain file descriptors, or surprising return codes. sounds like two of your 5 examples have at least surprising terminations and return codes. These oversights can lead to other failures or problems that we don't expect, so i'm reluctant to encourage people to ignore them, though i grant that these failures with full memory access is even worse :) --dkg
Current thread:
- memory safety bugs in bc Hanno Böck (Nov 28)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Marcus Meissner (Nov 29)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Daniel Kahn Gillmor (Nov 29)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Hanno Böck (Nov 29)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Daniel Kahn Gillmor (Nov 29)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Daniel Kahn Gillmor (Nov 29)
- Re: memory safety bugs in bc Marcus Meissner (Nov 29)