Bug 163816

Summary: CAN-2005-2335 fetchmail overflow from malicious pop3 server
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Reporter: Mark J. Cox <mjc>
Component: fetchmailAssignee: Miloslav Trmač <mitr>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4.0CC: security-response-team, tmraz
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: impact=important,reported=20050721,public=20050721.source=vendorsec
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-07-25 19:43:31 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 SUSE none

Description Mark J. Cox 2005-07-21 12:41:05 UTC 
We were alerted today to a Debian bug report showing a flaw where a malicious
POP3 server could overflow a stack buffer in fetchmail.

Draft advisory at http://fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2005-01.txt

More details at end of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=212762

Most likely also affects RHEL3 and RHEL2.1 (although code in RHEL2.1 is
substantially different).
Comment 1 Mark J. Cox 2005-07-21 12:41:05 UTC 
Created attachment 117020 [details]
Proposed patch from SUSE
Comment 3 Tomas Mraz 2005-07-21 13:24:38 UTC 
Yep, this bug applies to RHEL2.1 as well. File pop3.c line 540.
Comment 4 Mark J. Cox 2005-07-25 07:52:41 UTC 
An advisory 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-2005-640.html
Comment 6 Charlie Brady 2005-07-28 03:03:36 UTC 
Summary is wrong, CVE number is CAN-2005-2355, not CAN-2005-2335.
Comment 7 Charlie Brady 2005-07-28 03:06:41 UTC 
Sorry, I was wrong.  CAN-2005-2335 *is* correct. FC3 advisory was incorrect.