[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533BD229.4000602@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:32:33 +0530
From: Huzaifa Sidhpurwala <huzaifas@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Information on CVE-2014-0158, openjpeg
On 04/02/2014 02:01 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just became aware of CVE-2014-0158[1], which was recently assigned
> to openjpeg.
> Looking at the proposed patch (as the description is rather brief), it
> seems to me that it is a dup of one of the bugs covered by
> CVE-2013-1447.
>
You are correct, i just realised that this issue is already patched when
i looked at those issues.
> Quoting from my post to oss-security:
>> 5. null pointer dereferences, division by zero, and anything that
> would just fit as DoS (CVE-2013-1447)
>
>> [listing the group of issues and attachments]
>> 5.
>> [...]
>> segfault6.patch
>
> Which is exactly what is being commented about in [2], a copy of which
> is also available at [3].
>
> IIRC without that patch some of the structures were not initialized
> and applications (like the ones shipped by openjpeg itself) would try
> to dereference NULL pointers, and just crash - no memory write was
> involved.
>
> Or is there more into CVE-2014-0158 that I might be missing?
>
I dont agree with this being only a crash. I put some details at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082925#c1
Anyway, this CVE is a dupe, MITRE could you please reject this CVE?
--
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Security Response Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
