|Summary:||media-libs/netpbm buffer overflow (CAN-2005-2978)|
|Product:||Gentoo Security||Reporter:||Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) <koon>|
|Component:||Vulnerabilities||Assignee:||Gentoo Security <security>|
|Package list:||Runtime testing required:||---|
Description Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 07:04:56 UTC
CAN-2005-2978 : RedHat discovered a buffer overflow in the netpbm utility pnmtopng. Prepared ebuild should be committed direct to stable on the following archs : alpha amd64 hppa ppc ppc64 sparc x86 Also media-libs/urt-3.1b-r1 should be pushed to ppc64 stable at the same time.
Comment 1 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 07:05:38 UTC
*** Bug 107609 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 07:06:34 UTC
vapier: please commit your ebuild from bug 107609.
Comment 3 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 08:30:28 UTC
Hm. In fact 10.29 is fixed, so we should move to that. Calling arch testers again (sorry bout that): Target KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 mips ppc ppc64 sparc x86" Stable any >=10.29 of your liking.
Comment 4 Lares Moreau 2005-10-18 10:07:15 UTC
x86: emerged 10.29-r1, without issue. this ebuild depends on media-libs/urt which is also unstable in this arch. perhaps a bug for media-libs/urt stabilization is in order, to handle the stablization of this dependency.
Comment 5 SpanKY 2005-10-18 10:32:13 UTC
no one said 10.29-r1 needs to be the one stabilized
Comment 6 Lares Moreau 2005-10-18 10:44:31 UTC
Thierry Carrez wrote: "Hm. In fact 10.29 is fixed, so we should move to that." is not 10.29-r1 the logical package to stabilize?
Comment 7 Michael Hanselmann (hansmi) (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 11:10:05 UTC
ppc and hppa done.
Comment 8 Andrej Kacian (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 12:12:53 UTC
If you don't want 10.29-r1 stabilized, don't say things like "Stable any >=10.29 of your liking." (comment #3). My liking was to stabilize 10.29-r1, because changelog entry for that revision says it contains multiple fixes.
Comment 9 SpanKY 2005-10-18 13:05:32 UTC
no what is logical is that you move to whatever package is the easiest or whichever version an arch team decides on
Comment 10 Andrej Kacian (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 14:04:22 UTC
Oh, so we don't care about quality now, but about having to do least possible amount of work now? Sorry I asked then.
Comment 11 Andrej Kacian (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 14:25:30 UTC
10.29 stable on x86
Comment 12 Bryan Østergaard (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 16:04:41 UTC
Comment 13 Luis Medinas (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 16:21:53 UTC
Comment 14 Brent Baude (RETIRED) 2005-10-18 19:37:26 UTC
Marked 10.29 ppc64 stable
Comment 15 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-19 00:25:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #10) > Oh, so we don't care about quality now, but about having to do least possible > amount of work now? Sorry I asked then. When multiple security-fixed versions are available, we (security) don't dictate which fixed version the arch teams must choose. This is their choice to decide which version is best fit for their arch stable tree. As long as the vulnerability is fixed, we are ok with it. That's what vapier was trying to say in his own words.
Comment 16 Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2005-10-19 08:34:06 UTC
10.29 sparc stable.
Comment 17 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2005-10-20 04:43:09 UTC
GLSA 200510-18 mips should mark stable to benefit from GLSA
Comment 18 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2005-10-21 05:14:42 UTC
10.29 stable on mips.