Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 47926
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Dominik Schäfer <schaedpq2@gmx.de>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Flags: Requestee:
 
 
koon: ()

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
neon.patch-ooo-1.0.x patch to fix 1.0.x versions of OOo, replaces neon.patch patch Dominik Schäfer 2004-04-15 07:59 0000 12.67 KB Details | Diff
neon.patch Fixes format string vulnerabilities in internal neon, replace current neon.patch patch Dominik Schäfer 2004-04-15 08:00 0000 11.94 KB Details | Diff
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 47926 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 47926 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: 2004-04-15 07:57 0000
Excerpt from the OpenOffice bugtracking system:
When used with a vulnerable version of Neon, OOo is susceptible to buffer
overflows from malicious DAV servers. (OpenOffice 1.0.x and 1.1.x) are affected.)

Reproducible: Didn't try
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.




The issue in the OpenOffice bugtracking system:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=27789

There is also an advisory from Secunia: http://secunia.com/advisories/11364/
CVE reference: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2004-0179

This is obiously relatied to bug 47799 but I think it is not dependent because
OpenOffice seem to use its own copy of the neon lib.
(http://secunia.com/advisories/11363/)

Workaround is not to use OpenOffice to connect to untrusted DAV-Servers.

There are patches for OpenOffice 1.0.x and 1.1.x in the OpenOffice bugtracker, I
will attach them to this bug.

------- Comment #1 From Dominik Schäfer 2004-04-15 07:59:53 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=29342) [details]
patch to fix 1.0.x versions of OOo, replaces neon.patch

------- Comment #2 From Dominik Schäfer 2004-04-15 08:00:51 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=29343) [details]
Fixes format string vulnerabilities in internal neon, replace current
neon.patch

------- Comment #3 From Dominik Schäfer 2004-04-15 08:02:09 0000 -------
(From update of attachment 29343 [details])
OK, this would be the fix for OpenOffice 1.1.x, I just forgot to mention it.

------- Comment #4 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-04-23 07:11:48 0000 -------
OpenOffice folks : your opinion on this one ?
Do you think this patch can make it in a Gentoo openoffice[-bin] release ?

-K

------- Comment #5 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-04-23 08:26:21 0000 -------
The patches provided here won't work, as they are for files in a tarball, but
anyway, I will do patches for the source versions. Regarding -bin-versions
there's not a lot we can do instead of waiting for the OOo-people to release an
update version...

------- Comment #6 From solar 2004-04-23 09:52:55 0000 -------
Is there any reason why gentoo could not provide a (-bin-version) for 
this pkg?

If no viable upgrade path exists and it does not look like oo upstream 
is going to be jumping on putting out a new version then I'd personaly
want to pkg mask the offending program (-bin-version only) in this case,
solely in order to keep more people from installing it.

------- Comment #7 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-04-24 02:02:46 0000 -------
In my understanding, openoffice-bin is a packaging of the official binary from
Oo.org, so if they don't release a new version, Gentoo can't have one either.

As for masking : openoffice-bin is a widely used package and the vulnerability
is very difficult to exploit (set up a malicious DAV server and convince people
to connect to it ?), so I'm not sure.

-K

------- Comment #8 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-04-24 04:01:29 0000 -------
I've now added the patch to the 1.1.x versions of openoffice and
openoffice-ximian in cvs. As I've never handled a security related bug before:
Should I rev-bump all versions now? Even for such big packages as OOo?

About -bin: I would vote strongly against hardmasking them. I know this is an
unfortunate situation, but too many people are using it, as not everybody has
the possibilty to compile it (or wants to wait for a day on slower hardware). I
think we could add a warning at the end of the emerge process as a workaround.

About why we don't provide our own bins: Because it's a lot of work, if someone
wants to take this on, fine ;-)

------- Comment #9 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-04-25 03:40:09 0000 -------
suka:
Yes, you should rev-bump, otherwise we can't issue a GLSA on this. 

On openoffice-bin, I agree hard masking is maybe overkill, but others may have other opinions. My point of view is that we can talk about it in the partial GLSA we will issue, sth like "you use untrusted DAV servers, if you want to be protected, drop openoffice-bin, use openoffice instead" ?

------- Comment #10 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-04-25 04:45:06 0000 -------
Ok rev-bumped everything, the version table is

for OOo:

1.1.0-r2 > 1.1.0-r4
1.1.0-r3 > 1.1.0-r5
1.1.1 > 1.1.1-r1

for OOo-ximian:

1.1.51 > 1.1.51-r1

The latest OOo-ximian-version (1.1.53) already includes the patch, so no need to do anything about that.

About the bin: Just want to mention that the latest ooo-ximian-bin is also vulnerable

------- Comment #11 From Kurt Lieber 2004-04-27 13:50:31 0000 -------
OK, so my suggestion is to list OOo-bin as an affected package in the GLSA and
then make it clear in the description that folks only need to worry about this
bug if they use untrusted webdav servers.  The fix then would be for OOo-bin
people to upgrade to OO-source.

------- Comment #12 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-05-05 02:30:02 0000 -------
suka:
I have a doubt on the 1.0.3-r1 version (apparently latest stable on ppc). Does it include the security fix ? If it does, it should probably be rev-bumped to 1.0.3-r2 ?

Current unaffected/affected table :
x86 affected: openoffice <= 1.1.1, openoffice-ximian <= 1.1.51, openoffice-bin <= 1.1.1, openoffice-ximian-bin <= 1.1.52
x86 unaffected: openoffice >= 1.1.1-r1, openoffice-ximian >= 1.1.51-r1
ppc affected: openoffice <= 1.0.3-r1 ??, openoffice-ximian <= 1.1.51, openoffice-bin <= 1.1.1
ppc unaffected: openoffice >= 1.0.3-r1 ??, openoffice-ximian >= 1.1.51-r1
sparc affected: openoffice <= 1.1.0-r3
sparc unaffected: openoffice >= 1.1.0-r4
amd64 affected: openoffice-bin <= 1.1.1
amd64 unaffected: none...

so we have a problem on amd64 because there is no source build in portage.

------- Comment #13 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-05-05 03:00:09 0000 -------
@Koon: Ooops, missed that one, 1.0.3-r2 is now in and includes the fix

------- Comment #14 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-05-05 05:16:49 0000 -------
GLSA drafted -- security@go : please review carefully as this one is rather
complicated, in particular you should check that it doesn't break glsa-check :)

------- Comment #15 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-05-13 09:25:21 0000 -------
GLSA 200405-04

------- Comment #16 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-20 01:37:29 0000 -------
Reopening bug as OpenOffice 1.1.2 is out and lists CAN-2004-0179 in the fixed
bugs list :
http://download.openoffice.org/1.1.2/release_notes_1.1.2.html

Using this bug to track that when oo-bin versions will be out, we will have to
update GLSA 200405-04.

------- Comment #17 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-06-20 05:34:07 0000 -------
ooo-bin-1.1.2 is already in the tree since a few days

------- Comment #18 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-20 08:56:24 0000 -------
Great !

Do you know the status of ximian-openoffice-bin, is there a version we could put in ~x86 that includes the Neon fix ? Or should we just edit the GLSA about openoffice-bin only ?

------- Comment #19 From Andreas Proschofsky 2004-06-20 14:44:51 0000 -------
not at the moment I am afraid, as 1.1.2 is now out I hope for a new version
soon though, but we are depending on Ximian/Novell for that, so no timeline I
can give you...

------- Comment #20 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-22 10:29:32 0000 -------
The GLSA will have to be updated when openoffice-bin-1.1.2 meets at least the
following keywords : "x86 ppc ~amd64", and/or when a ximian-openoffice-bin
based on 1.1.2 meets "~x86".

------- Comment #21 From Paul de Vrieze 2004-09-13 06:25:20 0000 -------
Koon, as would be expected the -bin release now meets these keywords

------- Comment #22 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-09-13 10:37:52 0000 -------
Paul:
openoffice-bin-1.1.2 currently has "x86 ~amd64" and needs "x86 ppc ~amd64"
openoffice-ximian-bin-1.1.53 (latest) is not 1.1.2-based

I didn't push ppc to mark stable on this since we have a temporary GLSA already and it would just be a silent GLSA update. If you feel confident they can make it I will ask them.

------- Comment #23 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-10-27 13:37:07 0000 -------
GLSA 200405-04:02 now includes openoffice-bin 1.1.2 fixed version.

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