Bug 383361 (CVE-2005-4872) - CVE-2005-4872 pcre incorrect memory requirement computation
Summary: CVE-2005-4872 pcre incorrect memory requirement computation
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: CVE-2005-4872
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 411731 413871 414271
Blocks: CVE-2006-7224
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-11-14 20:52 UTC by Josh Bressers
Modified: 2019-09-29 12:22 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-01-11 17:37:28 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2007:1052 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Important: pcre security update 2007-11-15 12:20:41 UTC

Description Josh Bressers 2007-11-14 20:52:04 UTC
CVE-2006-7224 initially described several integer overflows in pcre, all
described here:
http://scary.beasts.org/security/CESA-2007-006.html

This id should be used to describe issue #2
in that advisory:

2) Uncharacterized crash researching item #1 above: Demo:

(?P<0>)(?P<1>)...fill in this sequence...(?P<3999>)

This does not trigger the integer overflow present in #1 above, but still
crashes with a serious-looking memory error of some kind - possibly a buffer
overflow.

Comment 3 Tomas Hoger 2007-11-15 10:57:02 UTC
Reference in PCRE changelog for version 6.2:

 5. Named capturing subpatterns were not being correctly counted when a pattern
    was compiled. This caused two problems: (a) If there were more than 100
    such subpatterns, the calculation of the memory needed for the whole
    compiled pattern went wrong, leading to an overflow error. (b) Numerical
    back references of the form \12, where the number was greater than 9, were
    not recognized as back references, even though there were sufficient
    previous subpatterns.


Comment 7 Red Hat Product Security 2008-01-11 17:37:28 UTC
This issue was addressed in:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux:
  http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-1052.html


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