Bug 154216 – media-libs/imlib2: unspecified errors leading to DoS and execution of code (CVE-2006-480[6789])

• Product: Gentoo Security
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) 2006-11-06 01:31:43 UTC]

Hello vapier, maybe some stuff for you when an update is avaible.



http://secunia.com/product/3880/

DESCRIPTION:
Some vulnerabilities have been reported in imlib2, which can be
exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS (Denial of Service) or
potentially compromise an application using the library.

The vulnerabilities are caused due to unspecified errors within the
processing of JPG, ARGB, PNG, LBM, PNM, TIFF, and TGA images. This
may be exploited to execute arbitrary code by e.g. tricking a user
into opening a specially crafted image file with an application using
imlib2.

SOLUTION:
Do not open untrusted images with an application using the library.

PROVIDED AND/OR DISCOVERED BY:
Ubuntu credits M. Joonas Pihlaja

ORIGINAL ADVISORY:
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-376-1

[Comment 1 Andreas Niederl 2006-11-06 05:30:42 UTC]

Ubuntu seems to have a patch for this.
The new packages are linked on http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/450551 and when applying the Ubuntu-specific package patch to the original source tree there appears a file debian/patches/99_loader_overflows.patch which supposedly fixes this vulnerability.

[Comment 2 Andreas Niederl 2006-11-06 05:32:28 UTC]

Created attachment 101331 [details, diff]
99_loader_overflows.patch for imlib2-1.2.1 from Ubuntu

[Comment 3 SpanKY 2006-11-06 07:12:03 UTC]

ive used the actual fix committed upstream and added 1.3.0 with it

[Comment 4 Matthias Geerdsen (RETIRED) 2006-12-13 04:12:09 UTC]

looks like a forgotten bug here

1.3.0 has been marked stable on all arches

CVEs talk about <1.2.1 being affected, can someone confirm that <1.3.0 has been affected as well?

looks like this will need a GLSA then

[Comment 5 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) 2006-12-15 07:55:33 UTC]

(In reply to comment #4)

> CVEs talk about <1.2.1 being affected, can someone confirm that <1.3.0 has been
> affected as well?

that's a good question


> 
> looks like this will need a GLSA then
> 


i agree

[Comment 6 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) 2006-12-15 08:10:45 UTC]

Yeah I think we need a GLSA for this one.

[Comment 7 Wolf Giesen (RETIRED) 2006-12-15 10:24:20 UTC]

Seems to by my affirmative day today. "Yes".

[Comment 8 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) 2006-12-19 08:31:33 UTC]

Hu, what are exactly the vulnerable and the fixed versions??

[Comment 9 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) 2006-12-21 05:47:09 UTC]

GLSA 200612-20 , thanks everybody!