Bug 2325340 (CVE-2024-52533) - CVE-2024-52533 glib: buffer overflow in set_connect_msg()
Summary: CVE-2024-52533 glib: buffer overflow in set_connect_msg()
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2024-52533
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2325360 2325361 2325362
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-11-11 23:01 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-04-14 17:08 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:
omaciel: needinfo-


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:0936 0 None None None 2025-02-04 00:29:40 UTC

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2024-11-11 23:01:12 UTC
gio/gsocks4aproxy.c in GNOME GLib before 2.82.1 has an off-by-one error and resultant buffer overflow because SOCKS4_CONN_MSG_LEN is not sufficient for a trailing '\0' character.

Comment 2 David McInnis 2024-11-27 20:59:45 UTC
RHEL 9 is in a "Will not fix" state according to CVE-2024-52533.

Can anyone explain the justification for not fixing for RHEL9?

Also, is there a link with additional Red Hat information beyond this bug and the CVE page?

Thanks,

-Dave

Comment 4 Alison Dudiak 2025-01-15 18:25:17 UTC
I believe I have been incorrectly added to this ticket. Nothing to report.

Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2025-02-04 00:29:38 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9

Via RHSA-2025:0936 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:0936

Comment 7 Michael Catanzaro 2025-04-14 16:56:16 UTC
(In reply to David McInnis from comment #2)
> RHEL 9 is in a "Will not fix" state according to CVE-2024-52533.
> 
> Can anyone explain the justification for not fixing for RHEL9?

Hi, this is a very low-severity issue. Only affects you if (a) username component of URL is exactly 255 bytes, AND (b) hostname component of URL is also exactly 255 bytes. In the extremely unlikely event you're using a socks4a proxy with a URL that meets both of those conditions, or have decided to allow an attacker to specify which proxy URLs to use for some very strange reason, then the impact is a one byte out of bounds write that is not attacker-controlled (it will always be the trailing nul byte). Suffice to say CVSS scores do not always map well to actual risk, and I wouldn't worry about this one.

If I were analyzing this today, I would not have requested a CVE at all since the risk here is very low. Surely there are very many far more serious issues that never receive CVE IDs. However, it is an out of bounds write, so it is technically a vulnerability.

> Also, is there a link with additional Red Hat information beyond this bug
> and the CVE page?

See: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/3461


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