Bug 214393 - CVE-2006-4811 qt integer overflow
Summary: CVE-2006-4811 qt integer overflow
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora Legacy
Classification: Retired
Component: qt
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fedora Legacy Bugs
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: LEGACY, 3, 4, publish-fc3, publish-fc4
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-11-07 13:18 UTC by Jeff Sheltren
Modified: 2007-07-16 10:51 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2007-07-16 10:51:11 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jeff Sheltren 2006-11-07 13:18:38 UTC
An integer overflow flaw was found in the way Qt handled certain pixmap
images. If an application linked against Qt created a pixmap image in a
certain way, it could lead to a denial of service or possibly allow the
execution of arbitrary code. (CVE-2006-4811)

Both FC3 and FC4 need updates.

Comment 1 Jeff Sheltren 2006-11-07 13:21:01 UTC
RH announcement: http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0725.html

RH also released updates for kdelibs referring to the same CVE.  See
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0720.html  Should we do the same, and if
so, I suppose we'll need to open a separate bug report.

Comment 2 Jeff Sheltren 2006-11-07 15:58:15 UTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've created updated packages for FC3 and FC4 using
the patch from EL4.

FC3:
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jeff/legacy/qt-3.3.4-0.fc3.1.legacy.src.rpm
9da12e4a0defc57deee318ec039f66b0635b245f  qt-3.3.4-0.fc3.1.legacy.src.rpm

FC4:
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jeff/legacy/qt-3.3.4-15.5.1.legacy.src.rpm
6eabcf6feb724b549d3b529e62c2fd0997ea5159  qt-3.3.4-15.5.1.legacy.src.rpm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFUKx4Ke7MLJjUbNMRAknyAKCK6b3gCgqF1Lfq6MQ5Oibwbt0CQACeLTZd
ZpOBfSCLtzm4wj2foLQiGx8=
=Dktq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment 3 David Eisenstein 2006-11-11 06:15:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> RH also released updates for kdelibs referring to the same CVE.  See
> http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0720.html  Should we do the same, and if
> so, I suppose we'll need to open a separate bug report?

Yes and yes.  :)



Comment 4 David Eisenstein 2006-11-11 06:17:08 UTC
Thanks for submitting the packages, Jeff.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.