Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 339917 - net-analyzer/argus-clients-3.0.3.8 _FORTIFY_SOURCE indicates presence of overflow
Summary: net-analyzer/argus-clients-3.0.3.8 _FORTIFY_SOURCE indicates presence of over...
Status: RESOLVED TEST-REQUEST
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High major (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Netmon project
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: fortify-source
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2010-10-06 08:14 UTC by Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED)
Modified: 2012-03-19 12:04 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Build log (argus-clients-3.0.3.8:20101006-070714.log,27.96 KB, text/plain)
2010-10-06 08:14 UTC, Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-10-06 08:14:14 UTC 
You're receiving this bug because the package in Summary has produced _FORTIFY_SOURCE related warnings indicating the presence of a sure overflow in a static buffer.

Even though this is not always an indication of a security problem it might even be. So please check this out ASAP.

By the way, _FORTIFY_SOURCE is disabled when you disable optimisation, so don't try finding out the cause using -O0.

Thanks,
Your friendly neighborhood tinderboxer
Comment 1 Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-10-06 08:14:26 UTC 
Created attachment 249726 [details]
Build log
Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2011-06-01 00:32:08 UTC 
In the mean time we have 3.0.4.1 (upstream stable) and 3.0.5.* (upstream development) in the tree.
Comment 3 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2011-07-06 15:28:34 UTC 
Can we have this tested with 3.0.4.1 and up?
Comment 4 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-03-19 12:04:11 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> Can we have this tested with 3.0.4.1 and up?