Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 194278 - net-im/pidgin < 2.2.1 MSN Nudge Remote DoS (CVE-2007-4996)
Summary: net-im/pidgin < 2.2.1 MSN Nudge Remote DoS (CVE-2007-4996)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Security
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Vulnerabilities (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High minor (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Security
URL: http://www.pidgin.im/news/security/?i...
Whiteboard: B3 [noglsa]
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-09-30 13:23 UTC by ChazeFroy
Modified: 2007-10-17 18:47 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ChazeFroy 2007-09-30 13:23:26 UTC
http://www.pidgin.im/news/security/?id=23

"A remote MSN user that is not on the buddy list can cause a denial of service (crash) by sending a nudge message. The protocol plugin attempts to look up the buddy's information and accesses an invalid memory location if the user is not on the buddy list."

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Robert Buchholz (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-09-30 14:12:21 UTC
Chaze, thanks for the report.

net-im, please advise.
Comment 2 Olivier Crete (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-09-30 16:15:10 UTC
Fix version 2.2.1 is in the tree.
Arch teams: please stabilize this version
Comment 3 Olivier Crete (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-09-30 16:16:11 UTC
I'd also like to suggest that this is probably A3 since MSN is popular enough to be considered a default situation...
Comment 4 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-09-30 19:24:20 UTC
Sparc stable; looks good.
Comment 5 Pierre-Yves Rofes (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-09-30 19:35:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'd also like to suggest that this is probably A3 since MSN is popular enough
> to be considered a default situation...
> 

Probably, but AFAICT this is a simple client DoS, hardly a security issue...
I'll keep it B3 so we'll vote later for glsa need.
Comment 6 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-01 12:37:59 UTC
alpha/ia64/x86 stable
Comment 7 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-01 15:17:29 UTC
Stable for HPPA.
Comment 8 Tobias Scherbaum (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-03 20:11:11 UTC
ppc stable
Comment 9 Steve Dibb (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-04 14:27:07 UTC
amd64 stable
Comment 10 Olivier Crete (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-04 14:40:30 UTC
I removed all vulnerable versions from the tree. Its your turn now.
Comment 11 Robert Buchholz (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-04 15:07:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Probably, but AFAICT this is a simple client DoS, hardly a security issue...
> I'll keep it B3 so we'll vote later for glsa need.

Since this can be triggered remotely and by anyone, I'd say this is more than a "simple DoS" (as in "I start my application on this file and it crashes").
Comment 12 Pierre-Yves Rofes (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-06 13:27:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Probably, but AFAICT this is a simple client DoS, hardly a security issue...
> > I'll keep it B3 so we'll vote later for glsa need.
> 
> Since this can be triggered remotely and by anyone, I'd say this is more than a
> "simple DoS" (as in "I start my application on this file and it crashes").
> 

true, I missed that. I tend to vote YES then. 
Comment 13 Matt Drew (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-11 21:31:20 UTC
As a general rule we don't GLSA client-side DoS.  I don't see anything here that makes it more than that.
Comment 14 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-10-17 18:47:57 UTC
I vote NO -> closing with NO GLSA (2 no votes - ½? yes).