Bug 419991 (CVE-2007-5968) - CVE-2007-5968 mysql: privilege gain via binlog
Summary: CVE-2007-5968 mysql: privilege gain via binlog
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: CVE-2007-5968
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
URL: http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=C...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-12-11 16:25 UTC by Tomas Hoger
Modified: 2019-09-29 12:22 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-12-12 14:36:31 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tomas Hoger 2007-12-11 16:25:25 UTC
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2007-5968 to the following vulnerability:

MySQL 5.1.x before 5.1.23 might allow attackers to gain privileges via unspecified use of the BINLOG statement in conjunction with the binlog filename, which is interpreted as an absolute path by some components of the product, and as a relative path by other components.

References:

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=28597
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/news-5-1-23.html

Comment 1 Tomas Hoger 2007-12-11 17:28:38 UTC
I fail to see anything to suggest any security implications in the bug
referenced by CVE description.  Don't know what is the CVE description based on...

Referenced bug report is also mentioned in release notes in the context of other
fix:

  Replication: It was possible for the name of the relay log file to exceeed the
  amount of memory reserved for it, possibly leading to a crash of the server.
  (Bug#31836)

  http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=31836

This is possible buffer overflow triggered if server is using pidfile with name
longer than 502 characters.  This is controlled by system administrator, so no
trust boundary is crossed here and therefore MySQL Bug#31836 won't be treated as
security issue.

Tom, do you see anything I've missed?


Comment 2 Tom Lane 2007-12-11 20:45:00 UTC
I concur, this looks like a garden-variety bug with no foreseeable security implications.

Comment 3 Robert Buchholz 2007-12-12 14:22:44 UTC
CVE was rejected.

Comment 4 Tomas Hoger 2007-12-12 14:36:31 UTC
Right, thanks Robert for the notice!

New CVE-2007-5968 description:

** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER.
ConsultIDs: None.
Reason: the candidate's description and references were inconsistent and
described unrelated issues.
Notes: All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to
prevent accidental usage.



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