Bug 384801 (CVE-2006-7230)

Summary:	CVE-2006-7230 pcre miscalculation of memory requirements if options are changed during pattern compilation
Product:	[Other] Security Response	Reporter:	Tomas Hoger <thoger>
Component:	vulnerability	Assignee:	Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	unspecified	CC:	kasal, omoris, security-response-team
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Security
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	http://www.pcre.org/changelog.txt
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-01-11 17:34:02 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:
Bug Depends On:	380511, 380521, 380531, 380541, 411731, 413871, 414271
Bug Blocks:

Description Tomas Hoger 2007-11-15 15:32:21 UTC

From pcre changelog, version 7.0:

4. Fixed a major bug that caused incorrect computation of the amount of memory
    required for a compiled pattern when options that changed within the
    pattern affected the logic of the preliminary scan that determines the
    length. The relevant options are -x, and -i in UTF-8 mode. The result was
    that the computed length was too small. The symptoms of this bug were
    either the PCRE error "internal error: code overflow" from pcre_compile(),
    or a glibc crash with a message such as "pcretest: free(): invalid next
    size (fast)". Examples of patterns that provoked this bug (shown in
    pcretest format) are:

      /(?-x: )/x
      /(?x)(?-x: \s*#\s*)/
      /((?i)[\x{c0}])/8
      /(?i:[\x{c0}])/8

    HOWEVER: Change 17 below makes this fix obsolete as the memory computation
    is now done differently.

Acknowledgements:

Red Hat would like to thank Ludwig Nussel for reporting this issue.

Comment 5 Mark J. Cox 2007-11-28 10:08:59 UTC

Now public via SUSE advisory, removing embargo

Comment 10 Red Hat Product Security 2008-01-11 17:34:02 UTC

This issue was addressed in:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux:
  http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-1059.html
  http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-1068.html