Snort upstream has released 2.8.5.1 version, addressing one security issue (from upstream release notes): * Fixed potential segfault when printing IPv6 packets using the -v option. Thanks to Laurent Gaffie for reporting this issue. References: ----------- http://vrt-sourcefire.blogspot.com/2009/10/snort-2851-release.html http://www.snort.org/downloads http://secunia.com/advisories/37135/ PoC: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Oct/299 ---- Credit: ------- Laurent Gaffié CVE Request: ------------ http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2009/10/25/3
This issue might potentially affect the versions of the Snort package, as shipped with Fedora releases of 10 and 11. Dennis, please check and fix.
This is CVE-2009-3641.
snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc10
snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc11
snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
snort-2.8.5.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
this was never closed, snort has long been removed from fedora
(In reply to Dennis Gilmore from comment #8) > this was never closed, snort has long been removed from fedora Thanks, Dennis. And there's no willingness / possibility to bring it back? Can you clarify the reasons why it got deprecated? (can't find an entry for it in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Deprecated_packages) Thank you && Regards, Jan
the rules became propietory, there is some community GPL ones but they did not do much. the way it was built multiple times with different config options was akward. It came down to the software being a mess and the availabily of useful rules slim. It really is not worth the effort to maintain.
(In reply to Dennis Gilmore from comment #10) > the rules became propietory, there is some community GPL ones but they did > not do much. the way it was built multiple times with different config > options was akward. It came down to the software being a mess and the > availabily of useful rules slim. It really is not worth the effort to > maintain. OK, makes sense now. Thanks, Dennis.