Bug 2344291 (CVE-2024-57392)
| Summary: | CVE-2024-57392 proftpd: Buffer Overflow in ProFTPD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport> |
| Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Product Security DevOps Team <prodsec-dev> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | unspecified | CC: | paul |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Security |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: |
A flaw was found in ProFTPD. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code and cause a denial of service (DoS) via a maliciously crafted message sent to the ProFTPD service port.
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 2344417, 2344418 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
OSIDB Bzimport
2025-02-06 22:01:27 UTC
Comment from upstream: https://github.com/proftpd/proftpd/issues/1866#issuecomment-2645976560 I executed all of the provided test cases, and have verified the following: * the test cases which trigger issues do so only for _data transfers_ (file uploaded/downloads, directory listings); data transfers require successfully authentication * the test cases do _not_ require that the `--enable-devel=nodaemon:nofork` configure option be used * the test cases trigger issues with NULL pointer dereferences; I found no sign of the purported "buffer overflow" Thus any "denial of service" is self-inflicted; the process which dies due to the NULL pointer deference is the process handling that particular client connection, and no other clients or connections. At this point, I am inclined to think this advisory was incompetently written/reported, and no one actually bothered to verify this before issuing the (IMHO, spurious and useless) CVE. |