Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 643396 - (CVE-2010-3192) CVE-2010-3192 glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
CVE-2010-3192 glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from...
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
unspecified
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
public=20100427,reported=20101012,sou...
: Security
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-10-15 09:47 EDT by Jan Lieskovsky
Modified: 2016-02-04 01:47 EST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-02-02 16:02:22 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Sourceware 12189 None None None Never
Novell 636113 None None None Never

  None (edit)
Description Jan Lieskovsky 2010-10-15 09:47:27 EDT
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2010-3192 to
the following vulnerability:

Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library
(aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which
might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive
information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as
demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer
overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in
debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection)
and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.

References:
[1] http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399
[2] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8
[3] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6
[4] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7
[5] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2
[6] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3
[7] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4
[8] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5
Comment 4 Josh Bressers 2011-02-02 16:02:22 EST
Statement:

The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security
impact. We do not currently plan to fix this flaw. If more information becomes available at a future date, we may revisit the issue.
Comment 5 Tomas Hoger 2011-02-04 14:21:44 EST
Upstream bug for this issue, resolved as wontfix:
  http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12189

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