Bug 680117 (CVE-2010-4746)
Summary: | CVE-2010-4746 Directory Server: Multiple memory leaks in the normalization functionality | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov> |
Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | nkinder, rmeggins |
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: | 2011-04-19 16:58:32 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: | 663597 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Jan Lieskovsky
2011-02-24 12:02:02 UTC
Nathan, Rich, did this affect any released Red Hat Directory Server 8 versions? From a quick look at the patch, it seems that the memory leak may have been introduced as part of the other normalization fixes in 8.2.3 and probably did not affect 8.2.2, which would explain why the memory leak bug was not described in RHBA-2011:0003. These did affect rhds 8.2 and we did release an errata to fix them in rhds 8.2 Did it affect released 8.2 version though. As mentioned, I know the relevant bug is linked from 8.2.3 update, but the relevant part of the fix: http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=389/ds.git;a=commitdiff;h=4da627a proper freeing of test_attr is not applicable to 8.2.2. It seems that the issue was both introduced and fixed in between 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 for RHDS. The leak was introduced by the fix for bug 641944, which was checked into the DS 8.2 branch on 2010-12-09. This leak was never in a released 8.2 version of Red Hat Directory Server. Thank you, Nathan! Statement: Not vulnerable. This issue did not affect Red Hat Directory Server 8 packages. |