Bug 53903 – app-emulation/vice-1.14 - monitor memory dump format string vulnerability

• Product: Gentoo Security
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) 2004-06-14 10:11:08 UTC]

There is a format string vulnerability in the handling of the monitor
"memory dump" command. If the string to be output contains any % sign,
it is interpreted as a command for the output, normally resulting in a
crash. Even more sophisticated exploits, like arbitrary code execution
on the host machine, are possible.

http://www.trikaliotis.net/vicekb/vsa-2004-1
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2004-0453
http://www.trikaliotis.net/vicekb/vice-1.14-mon-vuln.diff.gz

[Comment 1 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-14 13:34:40 UTC]

CAN-2004-0453
games : it looks like app-emulation/vice is in your herd... Could you apply the provided patch and bump the ebuild ?
Thanks.

[Comment 2 Mr. Bones. (RETIRED) 2004-06-14 17:47:00 UTC]

vice-1.14-r1.ebuild in CVS with the patch.  Go ahead and close.

[Comment 3 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) 2004-06-15 14:39:04 UTC]

GLSA drafted: security please review.

Note: 

- Changed the severity to low as a user have to type a specific string for this bug to be exploitable. Referenced advisory also rates severity as low.

- CAN-2004-0453 reference is not included as it is still under review.

[Comment 4 Mr. Bones. (RETIRED) 2004-06-15 15:32:09 UTC]

Yeah, I don't know if it's worth sending out a glsa on this.  There is no
privilege escalation due to the bug in vice.  It's basically the same as
telling some noob to run a dangerous command from the command-line.

[Comment 5 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 01:21:16 UTC]

aervosz and I agree for no GLSA on this one. Closing.

[Comment 6 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 05:21:00 UTC]

Was it mentioned in the ChangeLog that there was a security fix?  From what I have gathered from our users, silently fixing a security flaw, no matter how small, is bad in their eyes.  I think it would probably be better to issue a GLSA mentioning the fact that the bug was only exploitable by a user to give privileges of the same user, and therefore of very low severity, but still a GLSA should be issued.  After all, there *was* a security bug that has now been resolved.  Is that not what a GLSA is for?

*grin*

[Comment 7 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 07:24:02 UTC]

A vulnerability requiring, to be exploited, that you type an esoteric command yourself is not really a vulnerability. It shouldn't have been a security bug in the first place.

Otherwise bash and rm are vulnerable too, and should be masked :)
If you still disagree, please comment.

[Comment 8 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2004-06-16 07:54:23 UTC]

You're right.  That isn't an "exploit" but rather a simple "bug" in the code.