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...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: CVE-2010-3192
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:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
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:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-02-02 21:02:22 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
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.

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 21:02:22 UTC
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 19:21:44 UTC
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.