Bug 431525 (CVE-2008-0554)

Summary: CVE-2008-0554 netpbm: GIF handling buffer overflow in giftopnm
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Tomas Hoger <thoger>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: jnovy, kreilly, psplicha
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-28 10:23:26 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: Engineering432483, Engineering432484, Engineering432485, Engineering432486    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Tomas Hoger 2008-02-05 10:08:06 UTC
GIF handling code used in netpbm's giftopnm converter is based on the same code
as used by gd and SDL_image and is affected by the overflow known as
CVE-2006-4484 and CVE-2007-6697.

readImageData function in giftopnm.c does not properly check the value of
lzwMinCodeSize value read from GIF image before passing it to lzwInit, which
uses it as upper bound during the initialization of fixed sized table array,
leading to a buffer overflow.

This issue was fixed in upstream version 10.27.  Code checking the value is in
the initial giftopnm.c revision in projects public SVN repository:


This issue does not affect netpbm packages as shipped in Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 5 and current versions of Fedora, as those packages are based on fixed
upstream version.

Related issues:
CVE-2006-4484 (gd), CVE-2007-6697 (SDL_image), CVE-2008-0553 (tk)

Comment 2 Tomas Hoger 2008-02-12 11:47:30 UTC
This issue does not affect versions of netpbm as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 5 and Fedora 7 and 8, as those are based on upstream version which already
contains the patch.

Comment 5 Red Hat Product Security 2008-02-28 10:23:26 UTC
This issue was addressed in:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux: