Bug 643396 (CVE-2010-3192) - CVE-2010-3192 glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
Summary: CVE-2010-3192 glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from...
Alias: CVE-2010-3192
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-10-15 13:47 UTC by Jan Lieskovsky
Modified: 2019-09-29 12:40 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2011-02-02 21:02:22 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Sourceware 12189 None None None Never
Novell 636113 None None None Never

Description Jan Lieskovsky 2010-10-15 13:47:27 UTC
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.

[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 21:02:22 UTC

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 19:21:44 UTC
Upstream bug for this issue, resolved as wontfix:

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