Multiple potential integer overflow in raw2tiff.c in libtiff <= 4.5.1 can allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute an arbitrary code via a crafted tiff image which triggers a heap-based buffer overflow.
This CVE is referenced at https://gitlab.com/libtiff/libtiff/-/issues/591 (but it looks the content of this RHBZ is swapped with CVE-2023-38289).
In reply to comment #3: > This CVE is referenced at https://gitlab.com/libtiff/libtiff/-/issues/591 > (but it looks the content of this RHBZ is swapped with CVE-2023-38289). Hi, These CVEs are assigned by us (Red Hat CNA), CVEs attached to the bugs are from the final vulnerabilities report sent by the reporter. I am discussing about this issue with the reporter to rectify from his end.
Hi, (In reply to Dhananjay Arunesh from comment #4) > In reply to comment #3: > > This CVE is referenced at https://gitlab.com/libtiff/libtiff/-/issues/591 > > (but it looks the content of this RHBZ is swapped with CVE-2023-38289). > > Hi, These CVEs are assigned by us (Red Hat CNA), CVEs attached to the bugs > are from the final vulnerabilities report sent by the reporter. I am > discussing about this issue with the reporter to rectify from his end. As this currently causes confusion, as depending where you look you have different CVEs swappend, did the reporter agreed on fixing this annotation on his end? Would it be easier to swap the CVEs at RedHat CNA, as there were no RedHat updates yet fixing those issues? Thanks already in advance for looking into it, Regards, Salvatore
In reply to comment #5: > Hi, > > (In reply to Dhananjay Arunesh from comment #4) > > In reply to comment #3: > > > This CVE is referenced at https://gitlab.com/libtiff/libtiff/-/issues/591 > > > (but it looks the content of this RHBZ is swapped with CVE-2023-38289). > > > > Hi, These CVEs are assigned by us (Red Hat CNA), CVEs attached to the bugs > > are from the final vulnerabilities report sent by the reporter. I am > > discussing about this issue with the reporter to rectify from his end. We don't have any response from the reporter. > As this currently causes confusion, as depending where you look you have > different CVEs swappend, did the reporter agreed on fixing this annotation > on his end? > > Would it be easier to swap the CVEs at RedHat CNA, as there were no RedHat > updates yet fixing those issues? > The CVEs are assigned by Red Hat and I can check the CVEs are public at many places so instead of swapping the CVEs best option is to reject the CVEs and re-assign the flaws with new CVEs. > Thanks already in advance for looking into it, > > Regards, > Salvatore