First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 66303
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Matthias Geerdsen <vorlon@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 66303 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 66303 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

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: 2004-10-04 05:35 0000
http://secunia.com/advisories/12715/

Critical:Less critical
Impact:	DoS
Where:	From remote
Solution Status: Vendor Patch
Software: Xerces-C++ 2.x

Description:
Amit Klein has reported a vulnerability in Xerces-C++, which can be exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

The vulnerability is caused due to an input validation error in the XML parser. This can be exploited to consume a large amount of CPU resources by supplying a specially crafted XML document containing malicious attributes.

The vulnerability has been reported in version 2.5.0. Prior versions may also be affected.

Solution:
Update to version 2.6.0.
____________________________________________

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/377344 :

***
*** Security Advisory
***

***
*** Xerces-C++ 2.5.0: Attribute blowup denial-of-service
***

*** Author: Amit Klein

*** Release Date: October 2nd, 2004

*** Description:
An attacker can craft a malicious XML document, which uses XML 
attributes in a way that inflicts a denial of service condition 
on the target machine (XML parser).
The result of this attack is that the XML parser consumes all the CPU 

resources for a long period of time (from seconds to minutes, 
depending on the size of the payload).
In our experiments, we were able to send attacks (of few hunderd KBs) 

that caused the target machines to consume 100% CPU for several 
minutes.

*** Vendor status
Vendor was contacted, and a fix was included for the newly released 
version of Xerces-C++ (2.6.0).

*** Solution:
Upgrade to Xerces-C++ 2.6.0

------- Comment #1 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-04 07:17:28 0000 -------
John, please bump to 2.6.0.
Target KEYWORDS="x86 ~ppc amd64 ~sparc"

------- Comment #2 From John Davis 2004-10-04 09:01:40 0000 -------
bumped to stable on x86 and amd64. unstable keywords for ppc and sparc kept.

------- Comment #3 From John Davis 2004-10-04 09:06:05 0000 -------
i am retarded ;)

------- Comment #4 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-04 09:33:22 0000 -------
Target keywords are met -- ready for a GLSA

------- Comment #5 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-04 09:33:55 0000 -------
Security, please vote on GLSA need

------- Comment #6 From Luke Macken (RETIRED) 2004-10-04 12:23:29 0000 -------
For a remote DoS vulnerability,  I don't see why we shouldn't issue a GLSA.

------- Comment #7 From Matthias Geerdsen 2004-10-04 12:33:36 0000 -------
The advisory reads...

"...consumes all the CPU resources for a long period of time (from seconds to minutes, depending on the size of the payload).
In our experiments, we were able to send attacks (of few hunderd KBs) that caused the target machines to consume 100% CPU for several minutes."

that does not sound like too bad of a DoS.
I'm pretty unsure about GLSA or no GLSA since there was not much published about this yet. Only saw the advisories on BugTraq, Secunia and OSVDB (ID: 10471) so far.
Guess I would put in a quarter vote against an announcement, you may take that as no vote too ;-)

------- Comment #8 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-04 14:01:44 0000 -------
Yes, and you would need to find a program linked with an affected version...
I would vote against. Not really a DoS and hardly exploitable. Waiting for more inputs...

------- Comment #9 From Kurt Lieber 2004-10-05 11:35:09 0000 -------
I'm in agreement w/ no glsa.  doesn't seem all that serious in the grand scheme
of things

------- Comment #10 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-05 11:39:33 0000 -------
Then it's done. Thanks everyone.

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