Bug 134720
| Summary: | CAN-2004-0883 smbfs potential DOS (CAN-2004-0949) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 | Reporter: | Josh Bressers <bressers> | ||||||
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Alexander Viro <aviro> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> | ||||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||||
| Version: | 3.0 | CC: | davej, jbaron, peterm, petrides, riel, security-response-team, tburke | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Security | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | impact=moderate,public=20041115 | ||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2004-12-02 11:41:07 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: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Josh Bressers
2004-10-05 19:02:41 UTC
Created attachment 105808 [details]
Proposed patch for this issue.
Can someone take a look at this? This issue has pretty much died down on vendor-sec, and I worry that patch is not as complete as it should be. Al, could you please follow up on this? Thanks. -ernie as far as I can see, both issues are real and proposed patch looks right. IOW, ACK on both bug and proposed fix (I've removed reference to 2.6 kernel in below list)
CAN-2004-0883:
2.4 smb_proc_read(X) malicious data count overflow
[Explained in mail Message-ID:
<20040927083504.GA5287>]
2.4 smb_recveive_trans2 missing fragment information leak
[Explained in mail Message-ID:
<20040927083504.GA5287>]
2.4 smb_proc_readX malicious data offset information leak
[Explained in Message-ID: <20041023144344.GA32227>]
2.4 smb_recveive_trans2 malicious parm/data offset information
leak/DOS
[Explained in Message-ID: <20041023144344.GA32227>]
These issues are all of the type "user supplied data not
bounds checked" (leading to DoS or info leak). Linux 2.4
CAN-2004-0949:
> 2.4 + smb_recveive_trans2 defragmentation overflow
[Explained in mail Message-ID:
<20041019161226.GA10715>]
Both are "SMB fragment reconstruction does not ensure that all
data in
the
reconstructed packet is initialised and that a possible
attacker can
send always fragments with the same data in it to leave lots
of the
packet uninitialised, leading to DoS or leak of kernel memory"
Created attachment 106654 [details]
Updated patch to solve all issues
My breakdown of which issues were in which CVE names was not correct; the following is agreed: CAN-2004-0883 "remote supplied data not bounds checked" 2.4 smb_proc_read(X) malicious data count overflow 2.4 smb_proc_readX malicious data offset information leak 2.4 smb_recveive_trans2 malicious parm/data offset information leak/DOS 2.4 smb_receive_trans2 defragmentation overflow possible overflow 2.6 smb_recv_trans2 malicious parm/data offset information leak/DOS(?? 2.6 smb_proc_readX_data malicious data offset DOS (-=hdrlen underflow) CAN-2004-0949 "failure to initialise structure/memory" (CAN-2004-0949) 2.4 smb_receive_trans2 missing fragment information leak 2.6 smb_recv_trans2 missing fragment information leak 2.6 smb_recv_trans2 fragment resending leads to invalid counters A fix for this problem has just been committed to the RHEL3 E4 patch pool this evening (in kernel version 2.4.21-20.0.1.EL). I'm leaving this in ASSIGNED state until the fix is also propagated to the RHEL3 U4 and U5 patch pools. Removing embargo A fix for this problem has just been committed to the RHEL3 U4 patch pool this evening (in kernel version 2.4.21-27.EL). I'm leaving this in ASSIGNED state until the fix is also propagated to the RHEL3 U5 patch pool. A fix for this problem has just been committed to the RHEL3 U5 patch pool this evening (in kernel version 2.4.21-27.3.EL). Work on this problem has now been completed. |