+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #154573 +++ The package mgv 3.1.5 also seem to contain the vulnerable code, although I didn't have a closer look at it. ========== GNU gv Stack Overflow Vulnerability //----- Advisory Program : GNU gv Homepage : http://www.gnu.org/software/gv/ Tested version : 3.6.2 Found by : r.lifchitz at sysdream dot com This advisory : r.lifchitz at sysdream dot com Discovery date : 2006/11/06 Vendor notified : 2006/11/09 //----- Application description gv is a comfortable viewer of PostScript and PDF files for the X Window System. It uses the ghostscript PostScript interpreter and is based on the classic X front-end for gs, ghostview, which it has replaced now. //----- Description of vulnerability The 'gv' viewer is prone to a remote stack overflow vulnerability. This issue exists because the application fails to perform proper boundary checks before copying user-supplied data into process buffers. A remote attacker may execute arbitrary code in the context of a user running the application. As a result, the attacker can gain unauthorized access to the vulnerable computer. This issue is present itself in the 'ps_gettext()' function residing in the 'ps.c' file. Long comments in some specific headers (such as '%%DocumentMedia:') of PS files are unconditionally copied into 'text', a 257 character buffer on the stack. This issue is reported to affect gv 3.6.2, but earlier versions are likely prone to this vulnerability as well. Applications using embedded gv code may also be vulnerable. //----- Proof Of Concept [...] /----- Solution No known solution. You have to wait for a vendor upgrade and be careful with unknown PS files. //----- Impact Successful exploitation leads to remote code execution. //----- Credits Renaud Lifchitz r.lifchitz at sysdream dot com http://www.sysdream.com/
This can be treecleaned. Upstream is dead, no release in 8 years.
Security let's start by masking it and let treecleaners do their job. Any comments?
No objections, would somebody with the magick powers please do the trick?
masked. do we really need a maskglsa here?
The policy says "yes"... i would say "yes" too... (it's about an overflow so it's rather severe)
I agree with both masking and GLSA'ing - if there's anyone still using it, they need to know.
Though this bug is rather old. I've called for a maskglsa now with 2 YES votes.
Okay, our turn. Treecleaners, please vote. ++
++
Upstream is dead, wasn't able to find another source for this package. Voting yes for that.
Just FWI it was (masking) GLSA 200703-24
# Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> (09 Apr 2007) # Pending removal 09 Jun 2007, for treecleaners # app-admin/cpu -> bug 173064 # app-admin/quickswitch -> bug 134335 # app-misc/jive -> bug 142838 # app-text/mgv -> bug 154645 # net-misc/dhcp-agent -> bug 168565 # x11-plugins/wmmail -> bug 73987 app-admin/cpu app-admin/quickswitch app-misc/jive app-text/mgv net-misc/dhcp-agent x11-plugins/wmmail
Removed
