Bug 53903 - app-emulation/vice-1.14 - monitor memory dump format string vulnerability
Bug#: 53903 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: unspecified Platform: All
OS/Version: All Status: RESOLVED Severity: normal Priority: P2
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: security@gentoo.org Reported By: carlo@gentoo.org
Component: Security
URL:  http://www.trikaliotis.net/vicekb/vsa-2004-1
Summary: app-emulation/vice-1.14 - monitor memory dump format string vulnerability
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: C2 [glsa]
Opened: 2004-06-14 10:11 0000
Description:   Opened: 2004-06-14 10:11 0000 
There is a format string vulnerability in the handling of the monitor
"memory dump" command. If the string to be output contains any % sign,
it is interpreted as a command for the output, normally resulting in a
crash. Even more sophisticated exploits, like arbitrary code execution
on the host machine, are possible.

http://www.trikaliotis.net/vicekb/vsa-2004-1
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2004-0453
http://www.trikaliotis.net/vicekb/vice-1.14-mon-vuln.diff.gz

------- Comment #1 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-14 13:34:40 0000 ------- 
CAN-2004-0453
games : it looks like app-emulation/vice is in your herd... Could you apply the provided patch and bump the ebuild ?
Thanks.

------- Comment #2 From Mr. Bones. 2004-06-14 17:47:00 0000 ------- 
vice-1.14-r1.ebuild in CVS with the patch.  Go ahead and close.

------- Comment #3 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2004-06-15 14:39:04 0000 ------- 
GLSA drafted: security please review.

Note: 

- Changed the severity to low as a user have to type a specific string for this bug to be exploitable. Referenced advisory also rates severity as low.

- CAN-2004-0453 reference is not included as it is still under review.

------- Comment #4 From Mr. Bones. 2004-06-15 15:32:09 0000 ------- 
Yeah, I don't know if it's worth sending out a glsa on this.  There is no
privilege escalation due to the bug in vice.  It's basically the same as
telling some noob to run a dangerous command from the command-line.

------- Comment #5 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 01:21:16 0000 ------- 
aervosz and I agree for no GLSA on this one. Closing.

------- Comment #6 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 05:21:00 0000 ------- 
Was it mentioned in the ChangeLog that there was a security fix?  From what I
have gathered from our users, silently fixing a security flaw, no matter how
small, is bad in their eyes.  I think it would probably be better to issue a
GLSA mentioning the fact that the bug was only exploitable by a user to give
privileges of the same user, and therefore of very low severity, but still a
GLSA should be issued.  After all, there *was* a security bug that has now been
resolved.  Is that not what a GLSA is for?

*grin*

------- Comment #7 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 07:24:02 0000 ------- 
A vulnerability requiring, to be exploited, that you type an esoteric command
yourself is not really a vulnerability. It shouldn't have been a security bug
in the first place.

Otherwise bash and rm are vulnerable too, and should be masked :)
If you still disagree, please comment.

------- Comment #8 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 07:54:23 0000 ------- 
You're right.  That isn't an "exploit" but rather a simple "bug" in the code.