Bug 643396 (CVE-2010-3192)

Summary: CVE-2010-3192 glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: unspecifiedCC: bressers, fweimer, jakub, schwab, wnefal+redhatbugzilla
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: 2011-02-02 21:02:22 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Jan Lieskovsky 2010-10-15 13:47:27 UTC
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2010-3192 to
the following vulnerability:

Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library
(aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which
might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive
information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as
demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer
overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in
debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection)
and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.

[1] http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399
[2] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8
[3] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6
[4] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7
[5] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2
[6] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3
[7] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4
[8] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5

Comment 4 Josh Bressers 2011-02-02 21:02:22 UTC

The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security
impact. We do not currently plan to fix this flaw. If more information becomes available at a future date, we may revisit the issue.

Comment 5 Tomas Hoger 2011-02-04 19:21:44 UTC
Upstream bug for this issue, resolved as wontfix: