Bug 965110 - wireshark: DoS (large loop) in the ETCH dissector (wnpa-sec-2013-31, upstream #8464)
wireshark: DoS (large loop) in the ETCH dissector (wnpa-sec-2013-31, upstream...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 966331
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
: Security
Depends On: 965942
Blocks: 965198
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-05-20 08:57 EDT by Jan Lieskovsky
Modified: 2015-07-31 07:51 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-05-22 02:21:39 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jan Lieskovsky 2013-05-20 08:57:11 EDT
A denial of service flaw was found in the way ETCH dissector of Wireshark, a network traffic analyzer, processed certain ETCH packet capture files. A remote attacker could provide a specially-crafted ETCH packet capture file that, when processed, would lead to wireshark executable to enter large loop (denial of service) when trying to dissect that file.

Upstream bug report:
[1] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8464

[2] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8464#c0

Upstream patch:
[3] http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=48919
Comment 1 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2013-05-21 02:16:06 EDT
Upstream advisory:


The version of wireshark shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6 does not have support for Apache Etch Protocol.
Comment 2 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2013-05-21 02:17:06 EDT

Not Vulnerable. This issue does not affect the version of wireshark as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6.
Comment 3 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2013-05-22 02:27:52 EDT
Created wireshark tracking bugs for this issue

Affects: fedora-18 [bug 965942]
Comment 4 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2013-05-23 01:36:06 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 966331 ***

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