Bug 590690 (CVE-2010-1634)

Summary: CVE-2010-1634 python: audioop: incorrect integer overflow checks
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Tomas Hoger <thoger>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: unspecifiedCC: dmalcolm, psplicha, vdanen
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-27 15:43:02 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: 595760, 645880, 693954    
Bug Blocks:    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Proposed patch (python 2.6)
none
Proposed patch (python 2.4) none

Description Tomas Hoger 2010-05-10 13:52:09 UTC
Python SVN commit r64114 added integer overflow checks to multiple python module:

  http://svn.python.org/view?view=rev&revision=64114

All the issue got covered under single CVE - CVE-2008-3143.

Checks added to audioop (and rgbimg, see bug #541698) were incorrect and possible to bypass:

  http://bugs.python.org/issue8674

Comment 1 Tomas Hoger 2010-05-10 13:53:04 UTC
Created attachment 412843 [details]
Proposed patch (python 2.6)

Comment 2 Tomas Hoger 2010-05-10 13:53:25 UTC
Created attachment 412844 [details]
Proposed patch (python 2.4)

Comment 3 Tomas Hoger 2010-05-25 14:27:23 UTC
Assigning CVE-2010-1634 here and setting priority to low.

As noted in the upstream bug, ulaw2lin, alaw2lin and adpcm2lin integer overflows do not lead to buffer overflows.  lin2lin integer overflow can result in buffer overflow - audioop.lin2lin("A"*0x40000001, 1, 4).  ratecv requires special nchannels argument value rather than special / oversize input.

Upstream patches:
  http://svn.python.org/view?rev=81045&view=rev
  http://svn.python.org/view?rev=81079&view=rev

Statement:

The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security
impact, a future update may address this flaw.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2010-06-04 22:04:23 UTC
python-2.6.2-8.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-2.6.2-8.fc12

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2010-06-04 22:04:57 UTC
python-2.6.4-27.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-2.6.4-27.fc13

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-06-04 22:05:22 UTC
python-2.6-14.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-2.6-14.fc11

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2010-06-04 22:10:39 UTC
python3-3.1.2-6.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-3.1.2-6.fc13

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2010-06-04 22:11:54 UTC
python26-2.6.5-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-2.6.5-5.el5

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2010-06-14 17:09:32 UTC
python-2.6.4-27.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2010-07-05 22:04:37 UTC
python-2.6.2-8.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2011-01-13 23:09:56 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2011:0027 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0027.html

Comment 15 errata-xmlrpc 2011-01-14 09:03:56 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2011:0027 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0027.html

Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2011-05-05 18:56:37 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4

Via RHSA-2011:0491 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0491.html

Comment 17 Vincent Danen 2011-05-05 19:55:01 UTC
Statement:

(none)