First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 235806
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Christian Hoffmann <hoffie@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Flags: Requestee:
 
 
  ()

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 235806 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 235806 blocks: 235770

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2008-08-26 17:27 0000
See $URL and bug 235770.

------- Comment #1 From Christian Hoffmann 2008-08-26 19:18:11 0000 -------
Confirmed, there is vulnerable code in /usr/bin/faxspool. I tested version
1.1.36-r1 (only version in tree).
Vulnerable code is in line 656 (mkdir on that name later, if it fails, faxspool
dies) and 678/679 (user input gets cat'ed to that file, so it allows for
overwriting arbitrary files).

No patch from Debian yet, may want to follow their bug.

The vulnerable script is only installed with USE=fax (which seems to be
default).

------- Comment #2 From Alin Năstac 2008-08-31 13:17:58 0000 -------
If $spool_dir would exist, mkdir would fail and the faxspool process would
immediately exit without touching anything.

Am I missing something? If not, please close this bug as INVALID.

------- Comment #3 From Christian Hoffmann 2008-09-06 20:52:56 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> If $spool_dir would exist, mkdir would fail and the faxspool process would
> immediately exit without touching anything.
> 
> Am I missing something? If not, please close this bug as INVALID.
I think you are. You are right in case of $spooldir in line 656 and below, but
there is another (or even more?) issue, as already pointed out: In line 679,
the script writes to /tmp/faxsp.$$, independent of $spooldir, and of course
this name is guessable and can be made a symlink to an arbitrary file.

Or is it me who is wrong here? ;o)

------- Comment #4 From Alin Năstac 2008-09-07 09:59:57 0000 -------
Fixed in mgetty-1.1.36-r2 by applying mgetty-1.1.36-tmpfile.patch. Feel free to
start the stabilization process.

------- Comment #5 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2008-09-07 12:48:35 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Fixed in mgetty-1.1.36-r2 by applying mgetty-1.1.36-tmpfile.patch. Feel free to
> start the stabilization process.

Thanks. arches, please test and mark stable.
Target Keywords: "alpha amd64 hppa ia64 ~mips ppc ~ppc64 sparc x86"

------- Comment #6 From Markus Meier 2008-09-07 19:01:48 0000 -------
amd64/x86 stable

------- Comment #7 From Jeroen Roovers 2008-09-08 00:49:26 0000 -------
So the target is this:
=net-dialup/mgetty-1.1.36-r2

------- Comment #8 From Jeroen Roovers 2008-09-08 03:10:27 0000 -------
Stable for HPPA.

------- Comment #9 From Raúl Porcel 2008-09-08 16:52:47 0000 -------
alpha/ia64/sparc stable

------- Comment #10 From Tobias Scherbaum 2008-09-19 18:45:59 0000 -------
ppc stable

------- Comment #11 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2008-09-19 19:54:30 0000 -------
time for GLSA decision, I vote YES.

------- Comment #12 From Tobias Heinlein 2008-09-22 12:40:49 0000 -------
YES too, request filed.

------- Comment #13 From Craig (Security Padawan) 2008-11-05 21:44:33 0000 -------
*** Bug 245756 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #14 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2008-12-06 18:00:27 0000 -------
GLSA 200812-08

------- Comment #15 From Robert Buchholz 2008-12-16 22:38:16 0000 -------
Eygene Ryabinkin reported that the patch in 1.1.36-r2 is insufficient, which
was resolved in -r3. This went straight to stable, but a GLSA erratum is
warranted.

------- Comment #16 From Alin Năstac 2008-12-17 16:57:15 0000 -------
FWIW, the old patch had a functional problem, not a security one.

------- Comment #17 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2008-12-23 22:33:23 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> FWIW, the old patch had a functional problem, not a security one.
> 
glsa200812-08.xml updated, and closing as this has no security implications.

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug