> 
> [ forwarding to lynx-dev - see also followup forwarded separately ] 

for the record:
the advisory was against "lynx-current", which is lynx2.8.3dev.8 - August 1999,
which of course is not current in any sense of the word.

The current version of lynx is 2.8.2

It's available at
        http://lynx.browser.org
        http://sol.slcc.edu/lynx/release
        ftp://lynx.isc.org/lynx-2.8.2
2.8.3 Development & patches:
        http://lynx.isc.org/current/index.html

  
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:00:06 -0500 
> From: Servio Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> Subject: lynx 2.8.x - 'special URLs' anti-spoofing protection is weak 
>  
>  
> Klaus, 
>  
> I just scanned through the posts that are archived at 
> http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month111999/ in order to obtain further 
> understanding of what security threats truly exist and what measures have 
> been/are being taken to address these. A recent FreeBSD Security 
> Announcement (see below) has brought more attention to this issue and I am 
> hoping to receive appropriate clarification, where possible. 
>  
>  
> An explanation of my query - I work for Infrastructure Defense, Inc., which 
> provides private publications to fortune 500 companies about 
> information/computer security trends, vulnerabilities, etc. I strive to 
> contact the appropriate parties whenever there is a question as to the 
> veracity of a post, claim, other. Hence, my email to you. 
>  
> I hope to hear from you soon. 
> Servio 
>  
> Servio Medina - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Information Security Analyst 
> www.idefense.com  
>  
> ----- 
> FreeBSD-SA-00:08                                           Security Advisory 
>                                                                 FreeBSD, 
> Inc. 
>  
> Topic:                Lynx ports contain numerous buffer overflows 
>  
> Category:       ports 
> Module:         lynx/lynx-current/lynx-ssl/ja-lynx/ja-lynx-current 
> Announced:      2000-03-15 
> Affects:        Ports collection before the correction date. 
> Corrected:      See below. 
> FreeBSD only:   NO 
>  
> I.   Background 
>  
> Lynx is a popular text-mode WWW browser, available in several versions 
> including SSL support and Japanese language localization. 
>  
> II.  Problem Description 
>  
> The lynx software is written in a very insecure style and contains numerous 
> potential and several proven security vulnerabilities (publicized on the 
> BugTraq mailing list) exploitable by a malicious server. 
>  
> The lynx ports are not installed by default, nor are they "part of FreeBSD" 
> as such: they are part of the FreeBSD ports collection, which contains over 
> 3100 third-party applications in a ready-to-install format. 
>  
> FreeBSD makes no claim about the security of these third-party 
> applications, although an effort is underway to provide a security audit 
> of the most security-critical ports. 
>  
> III. Impact 
>  
> A malicious server which is visited by a user with the lynx browser can 
> exploit the browser security holes in order to execute arbitrary code as 
> the local user. 
>  
> If you have not chosen to install any of the 
> lynx/lynx-current/lynx-ssl/ja-lynx/ja-lynx-current ports/packages, then 
> your system is not vulnerable. 
>  
> IV.  Workaround 
>  
> Remove the lynx/lynx-current/lynx-ssl/ja-lynx/ja-lynx-current ports, if you 
> you have installed them. 
>  
> V.   Solution 
>  
> Unfortunately, there is no simple fix to the security problems with the 
> lynx code: it will require a full review by the lynx development team and 
> recoding of the affected sections with a more security-conscious attitude. 
>  
> In the meantime, there are two other text-mode WWW browsers available in 
> FreeBSD ports: www/w3m (also available in www/w3m-ssl for an SSL-enabled 
> version, and japanese/w3m for Japanese-localization) and www/links. 
>  
> Note that the FreeBSD Security Officer does not make any recommendation 
> about the security of these two browsers - in particular, they both appear 
> to contain potential security risks, and a full audit has not been 
> performed, but at present no proven security holes are known. User beware - 
> please watch for future security advisories which will publicize any such 
> vulnerabilities discovered in these ports. 
>  
> --- End report --- 
>  
> 


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey

Reply via email to