Bug 92991 – dev-lang/nasm: IEEE_PUTASCII Remote Buffer Overflow

• Product: Gentoo Security
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-17 15:22:03 UTC]

I'm not sure if the 0.98.39 in portage is affected...http://securityfocus.com/bid/13506/info/ says that 0.98.38 and 0.98.35 are vulnerable but CAN-2005-1194 just says 0.98


----------------------------------------------
NASM is prone to a remote buffer overflow vulnerability. This issue affects the 'ieee_putascii()' function.

It is likely that an attacker exploits this issue by crafting a malicious source file to be assembled by the application. This file is sent to an affected user and if the user loads the file in NASM, the attack may result in arbitrary code execution.

The attacker may then gain unauthorized access in the context of the user running NASM.

[Comment 1 Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-17 15:36:12 UTC]

According to tigger^ 0.98.39 is vulnerable. (Anyway, I didn't see that it was
released on January)

[Comment 2 Mr. Bones. (RETIRED) 2005-05-17 15:57:45 UTC]

Fixed.  Security team can proceed.

[Comment 3 Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-17 16:08:17 UTC]

Team members, please advise on this one

[Comment 4 Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-18 05:42:45 UTC]

Here's from the original advisory
(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7175315&forum_id=4978)

--- nasm-0.98.39/output/outieee.c.overfl 2005-01-15 23:16:08.000000000 +0100
 +++ nasm-0.98.39/output/outieee.c 2005-04-01 12:55:17.231530832 +0200
 @@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ static void ieee_putascii(char *format, 
      va_list ap;
  
      va_start(ap, format);
 -    vsprintf(buffer, format, ap);
 +    vsnprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), format, ap);
      l = strlen(buffer);
      for (i = 0; i < l; i++)
          if ((buffer[i] & 0xff) > 31)

[Comment 5 Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-18 05:47:53 UTC]

It's here in CVS:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7218790&forum_id=9091

[Comment 6 Mr. Bones. (RETIRED) 2005-05-18 07:16:05 UTC]

Why are we still talking about this?  It's fixed in portage already.  Security
team, do your announce thing and let's move on.

[Comment 7 Jean-François Brunette (RETIRED) 2005-05-18 07:27:31 UTC]

Closing without GLSA, because it relies on a too dumb user to work.