Bug 717199 (CVE-2011-2511)

Summary:	CVE-2011-2511 libvirt: integer overflow in VirDomainGetVcpus
Product:	[Other] Security Response	Reporter:	Petr Matousek <pmatouse>
Component:	vulnerability	Assignee:	Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	unspecified	CC:	ajia, aquini, berrange, clalance, crobinso, eblake, itamar, jforbes, laine, libvirt-maint, vbian, veillard, virt-maint
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:	2012-10-04 20:14:28 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:	717202, 717203, 717204, 717206, 717207
Bug Blocks:

Description Petr Matousek 2011-06-28 11:15:54 UTC

It has been found that calling VirDomainGetVcpus with bogus parameters can lead to integer overflow and subsequent heap corruption. A remote attacker could use this flaw to crash libvirtd (DoS).

Upstream patch:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg01278.html

Comment 3 Petr Matousek 2011-06-28 11:27:21 UTC

Created libvirt tracking bugs for this issue

Affects: fedora-all [bug 717204]

Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2011-07-21 10:31:10 UTC

This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2011:1019 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1019.html

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2011-07-21 12:30:50 UTC

This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2011:1019 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1019.html

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2011-08-23 14:40:29 UTC

This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6

Via RHSA-2011:1197 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1197.html

Comment 8 Eric Blake 2012-10-04 16:48:19 UTC

Any reason this bug is still marked NEW when all dependent bugs have been closed?

Comment 9 Petr Matousek 2012-10-04 20:14:28 UTC

(In reply to comment #8)
> Any reason this bug is still marked NEW when all dependent bugs have been
> closed?

No reason, we can close this bug now. Thanks Eric.