<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "http://bugs.gentoo.org/bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="2.22.7"
          urlbase="http://bugs.gentoo.org/"
          maintainer="bugzilla@gentoo.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>197446</bug_id>
          <alias>CVE-2007-5707</alias>
          <creation_ts>2007-10-29 19:20 0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>net-nds/openldap &lt; 2.3.39-r1 app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs &lt;20071128 Denial of Service Vulnerabilities (CVE-2007-{5707,5708})</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2008-03-19 22:07:43 0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>Gentoo Security</product>
          <component>Vulnerabilities</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Linux</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          <bug_file_loc>http://secunia.com/advisories/27424/</bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard>B3 [glsa]</status_whiteboard>
          
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>minor</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          <blocked>196865</blocked>
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>keytoaster@gentoo.org</reporter>
          <assigned_to>security@gentoo.org</assigned_to>
          <cc>ldap-bugs@gentoo.org</cc>

      

      
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>keytoaster@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 19:20:10 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Some vulnerabilities have been reported in OpenLDAP, which can be
exploited by malicious users to cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

1) A vulnerability is caused due to the &quot;add_filter_attrs()&quot; function
in servers/slapd/overlay/pcache.c not correctly NULL terminating
&quot;new_attrs&quot;, which can be exploited to crash slapd due to an out of
bounds memory access.

Successful exploitation may require that slapd runs as proxy-caching
server.

2) An error within the normalisation of &quot;objectClasses&quot; can be
exploited to crash a vulnerable server by sending a malformed
&quot;objectClasses&quot; attribute.

The vulnerabilities are reported in versions prior to 2.3.39.

Note: Several other bugs, which may have a security impact, were also
reported.

SOLUTION:
Update to version 2.3.39.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>keytoaster@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 19:24:07 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>2.3.39 has been added to the tree a few hours ago. Is this version ready to be stabilised? ldap team, please advise.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jokey@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 19:47:47 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>do it :)

arches please use the testkit with overlays useflag set (and without if you feel like spending more time)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>strerror@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 19:48:05 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>well given that it&apos;s only just been added and we haven&apos;t filed a stabilization bug i&apos;d guess it&apos;s NOT ready to be stabilized. In light of the advisory though we can probably speed it up. Having read all the advisories though, it doesn&apos;t seem to be a major issue, in fact contrary to what I saw some classify the bug as, it does require special compile configuration and authorized access to add things to the DIT. In other words the impact is lessened considerably if you are running a normal recommended setup where you don&apos;t allow anonymous people to make modifications to your LDAP backend. I&apos;ll see if I can get hold of robbat / jokey and find out there thoughts, we&apos;ll look to stabilize it soon though.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>strerror@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 19:48:38 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>markus your overlay use flag still breaks all the syncrepl stuff. I&apos;d like to fix it before we push it out. I&apos;ll catch you on irc.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>py@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-29 21:50:28 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>ok, ping security back when it&apos;s ready.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jokey@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-10-30 11:04:59 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>*** Bug 195180 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-05 19:32:10 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>After ~arch for a week, how is it doing?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jokey@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-08 06:24:37 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Enabled the syncprov overlay now by default so that it works sanely with new-style config system with 2.3.39-r1</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-16 00:06:50 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Is this ready for stabling now?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 02:02:31 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Jokey, I remember you OK&apos;ed the stabling in a recent chat, but I lost the logs. Can you confirm that again, please?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jokey@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 19:51:18 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Yup, just go ahead for now, the bdb issue will be dealt with at a different version</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 20:14:24 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Arches, please test and mark stable net-nds/openldap-2.3.39-r1.
Target keywords : &quot;alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 ppc ppc64 s390 sh sparc x86&quot;
</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>kingtaco@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 21:16:37 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>*sigh* you&apos;ll need a emul-linux-x86-baselibs bump too...</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 21:31:38 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>(In reply to comment #13)
&gt; *sigh* you&apos;ll need a emul-linux-x86-baselibs bump too...

copy that sigh.
</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>ranger@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-26 23:14:29 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>ppc stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>ranger@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-27 01:28:18 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>ppc64 stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jer@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-27 03:18:44 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Stable for HPPA.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>fauli@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-27 08:59:42 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>x86 stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>armin76@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-27 14:47:07 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>alpha/ia64/sparc stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>kingtaco@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-28 06:01:36 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>(In reply to comment #14)
&gt; (In reply to comment #13)
&gt; &gt; *sigh* you&apos;ll need a emul-linux-x86-baselibs bump too...
&gt; 
&gt; copy that sigh.
&gt; 

app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-20071128 going in the tree in an hour contains the fix.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>wolf31o2@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-28 23:22:26 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>amd64 done...</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-11-28 23:58:44 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>vote is open.

Vulnerability (1) does not affect the default configuration and vulnerability (2) only allows *authenticated* users to crash the server.

I still tend to vote YES here.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jaervosz@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2008-01-06 18:15:45 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>I vote YES.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>rbu@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2008-01-06 23:03:48 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>full YES then and filed.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>py@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2008-03-19 22:07:43 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>GLSA 200803-28</thetext>
          </long_desc>
      
    </bug>

</bugzilla>