Hi Tim,
Yeah, those are the correct two commits.
My other concern was that, honestly, I'm not all that sure what the true risk and capability to exploit is for these bugs. I've read the CVE's, and associated discussions on the a few lists - but it hasn't enlightened me as much as I've hoped.
As I understand it, the vulnerability was that someone (with enough access to make a urlfetch request and not have it refused for lack of auth) could trick the server into returning more data than the requested resource actually contained, with contents of memory leaking into the extra. I don't know whether it could contain anything predictable, useful or "interesting". If the range they asked for crossed an allocation boundary, I think they'd probably just trigger a SEGV in the process serving their connection, and be disconnected.
I don't know much about urlfetch in practice, or this implementation in particular, so I too don't really know how exploitable this is. The bug just happened to cross my radar, so it got whacked.
Cheers,
ellie
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 03:36 AM, Tim Champ via Info-cyrus wrote:
Hello all. Sorry about following up to my own email, but I think I understand the changes now to 2.4.18 in order to make it CVE compliant. As best I can understand, if I apply the two commits from Ellie Timoney on 10/26/2015, 2.4.18 would be "secure" once recompiled. These two commits appear to be these:If someone can confirm that I'm correct on this, it would be very appreciated! Thanks in advance.TimOn Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Tim Champ <champ@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello all.We're trying to sort through our path here with patching for the CVE/commits that were released in 2.5.7, but also relevant to 2.4.18. We're currently on 2.4 series, and I was wondering what the plans were for a 2.4 release to address these security fixes. While moving to 2.5 is in the plans, I always despise a quick upgrade of anything before major holiday periods!My other concern was that, honestly, I'm not all that sure what the true risk and capability to exploit is for these bugs. I've read the CVE's, and associated discussions on the a few lists - but it hasn't enlightened me as much as I've hoped.Any help, or answers, for either issue is appreciated. Thanks!
Tim--Tim Champ
Coordinator of Unix Infrastructure
UMBC - Division of Information Technology--Tim ChampCoordinator of Unix InfrastructureUMBC - Division of Information Technology----Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/List Archives/Info: http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-cyrus/To Unsubscribe:
---- Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/ List Archives/Info: http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-cyrus/ To Unsubscribe: https://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/info-cyrus
