Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 156989
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Jakub Moc (RETIRED) <jakub@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 156989 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 156989 blocks:

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: 2006-12-03 07:42 0000
This feature is NOT meant for hiding those scanelf QA warnings; that's what
QA_{TEXTRELS,EXECSTACK,WX_LOAD} is for when the package can't be fixed. 

RESTRICT="binchecks" should _only_ be used for stuff where these checks don't
make any sense and just cause needless overhead (pure data stuff, like kernel
sources, icon packs, themes, fonts etc.)

------- Comment #1 From Timothy Redaelli 2006-12-09 07:04:47 0000 -------
last rites
# Timothy Redaelli <drizzt@gentoo.org> (09 Dec 2006)
# pending removal (#156989)
# can't fix rpath, application checks its checksum
app-antivirus/vlnx

i close the bug when i'll punt the package

------- Comment #2 From Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2006-12-11 10:01:00 0000 -------
Thanks for finding this bug Jakub, this is a security issue and we need to vote
on a maskglsa.

I tend to vote YES as scanning a file with a specific name may result in
arbitrary code execution.

Timothy: please dont disable these checks in future without checking with the
security team (ideally me or solar)!

------- Comment #3 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2006-12-11 10:10:43 0000 -------
I vote YES.

------- Comment #4 From Wolf Giesen (RETIRED) 2006-12-11 10:38:24 0000 -------
yes++

------- Comment #5 From solar 2006-12-11 11:27:56 0000 -------
YES Vote. Solution in the GLSA should suggest removal from the system.

------- Comment #6 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2006-12-13 22:31:05 0000 -------
GLSA 200612-15

------- Comment #7 From Raphael Marichez 2006-12-14 06:03:05 0000 -------
severity -> enhancement for (maybe?) later resolution

------- Comment #8 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2007-03-02 17:22:28 0000 -------
Removed from the tree.

Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug