Bug 138325

Summary: CAN-2004-0930 wildcard remote DoS
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Reporter: Mark J. Cox <mjc>
Component: sambaAssignee: Jay Fenlason <fenlason>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3.0CC: jfeeney, security-response-team, tao
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: embargo=20041108:15,impact=moderate
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-11-16 17:37:55 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Proposed patch from Samba none

Description Mark J. Cox 2004-11-08 09:24:52 UTC
Samba told us on Nov07 that Samba <3.0.8 is vulnerable to a remote
DoS.  Public on Nov08 1500 UTC

"A bug in the input validation routines used to match filename strings
containing wildcard characters may allow a user to consume more than
normal amounts of CPU cycles thus impacting the performance and
response of the server."

        CAN-2004-0930 Affects: RHEL3

Embargoed (but only for a few hours).

Comment 2 Mark J. Cox 2004-11-08 09:32:51 UTC
Created attachment 106271 [details]
Proposed patch from Samba

Comment 3 Mark J. Cox 2004-11-08 12:30:48 UTC
I'll set this as impact "moderate" as it requires an authenticated
samba user to cause the DoS.

Comment 4 Josh Bressers 2004-11-16 15:58:48 UTC
This issue does appear to affect RHEL2.1 after all.

Comment 5 Josh Bressers 2004-11-16 17:37:55 UTC
An errata has been issued which should help the problem 
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being 
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, 
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report 
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-632.html