CVE-2021-43618 is assigned to this issue.
Adrian Bunk schrieb am Sa., 13. Nov. 2021, 21:09:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 07:02:48AM +0200, Anton Gladky wrote:
> > Thanks, Vincent, for the information. I would still wait for CVE,
> > so we can apply a patch and track vulnerability for other
> >
Thanks, Vincent,
now I am able to reproduce the issue!
I will request CVE.
Regards
Anton
Am So., 14. Nov. 2021 um 15:44 Uhr schrieb Vincent Lefevre :
>
> On 2021-11-14 14:15:25 +0100, Anton Gladky wrote:
> > well, I was thinking that upstream should request a CVE. Neverheless
> > I could not
On 2021-11-14 14:15:25 +0100, Anton Gladky wrote:
> well, I was thinking that upstream should request a CVE. Neverheless
> I could not reproduce the issue with the modern GCC-versions.
> Even on 32bit-systems.
I can still reproduce the segmentation fault under Debian/unstable.
Simplified
Hi Adrian,
well, I was thinking that upstream should request a CVE. Neverheless
I could not reproduce the issue with the modern GCC-versions.
Even on 32bit-systems.
Regards
Anton
Am Sa., 13. Nov. 2021 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Adrian Bunk :
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 07:02:48AM +0200, Anton Gladky
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 07:02:48AM +0200, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Thanks, Vincent, for the information. I would still wait for CVE,
> so we can apply a patch and track vulnerability for other
> Debian versions (stable/oldstable/o-o-stable etc.).
Hi Anton,
did you manage to get a CVE assigned for
Thanks, Vincent, for the information. I would still wait for CVE,
so we can apply a patch and track vulnerability for other
Debian versions (stable/oldstable/o-o-stable etc.).
Regards
Anton
Am Fr., 17. Sept. 2021 um 01:17 Uhr schrieb Vincent Lefevre <
vinc...@vinc17.net>:
> On 2021-09-16
On 2021-09-16 21:23:34 +0200, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Thanks for the bug report. We will fix it when CVE (if any) will be
> assigned and upstream patch will be available.
FYI, an upstream patch is now available here:
https://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-bugs/2021-September/005087.html
> Though,
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 important
Bug #994405 [libgmp10] libgmp10:i386: buffer overflow due to integer overflow
in mpz/inp_raw.c on 32-bit machines
Severity set to 'important' from 'grave'
> notfound -1 2:6.2.1+dfsg-2
Bug #994405 [libgmp10] libgmp10:i386: buffer overflow due
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 important
Bug #994405 [libgmp10] libgmp10:i386: buffer overflow due to integer overflow
in mpz/inp_raw.c on 32-bit machines
Ignoring request to change severity of Bug 994405 to the same value.
> notfound -1 2:6.2.1+dfsg-2
Bug #994405 [libgmp10]
Control: severity -1 important
Control: notfound -1 2:6.2.1+dfsg-2
Control: found -1 2:6.2.1+dfsg-1
Thanks for the bug report. We will fix it when CVE (if any) will be
assigned and upstream patch will be available.
Though, the integer overflows are not making the package unusable in most
cases.
Package: libgmp10
Version: 2:6.2.1+dfsg-2
Severity: grave
Tags: security upstream
Justification: user security hole
X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Security Team
mpz_inp_raw segfaults (SEGV_MAPERR) on large sizes. I suspect that
this is due to an integer overflow in mpz/inp_raw.c:
abs_xsize =
11 matches
Mail list logo
