[Fwd: [SECURITY] [DSA-131-1] Apache chunk handling vulnerability]
Hi, Does anyone know if this effects potato's apache-ssl package also? Is anyone able to confirm this? Cheers, Shane.--- Begin Message --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- - Debian Security Advisory DSA-131-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/security/ Wichert Akkerman June 19, 2002 - Package: apache Problem type : remote DoS / exploit Debian-specific: no CVE name : CAN-2002-0392 CERT advisory : VU#944335 Mark Litchfield found a denial of service attack in the Apache web-server. While investigating the problem the Apache Software Foundation discovered that the code for handling invalid requests which use chunked encoding also might allow arbitrary code execution on 64 bit architectures. This has been fixed in version 1.3.9-14.1 of the Debian apache package, as well as upstream versions 1.3.16 and 2.0.37. We strongly recommend that you upgrade your apache package immediately. wget url will fetch the file for you dpkg -i file.deb will install the referenced file. Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 alias potato - - Potato was released for alpha, arm, i386, m68k, powerpc and sparc. Source archives: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/source/apache_1.3.9-14.1.diff.gz MD5 checksum: 0faccc7432b4ef650cfeebb2edf9bdc3 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/source/apache_1.3.9-14.1.dsc MD5 checksum: 47140e36fc2947511d162dc7fef680bb http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/source/apache_1.3.9.orig.tar.gz MD5 checksum: 6758fe8b931be0b634b6737d9debf703 Architecture independent archives: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-all/apache-doc_1.3.9-14.1_all.deb MD5 checksum: 0b9c3b2bd1efefb2592cc8cbff59a67b Alpha architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-alpha/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_alpha.deb MD5 checksum: a4c9b63065ec47ad0c90bd9d1ab8d240 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-alpha/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_alpha.deb MD5 checksum: 50a5514d4882395b9843a4dd9ced7967 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-alpha/apache_1.3.9-14.1_alpha.deb MD5 checksum: 6ca230385c54a792923051e154dab020 ARM architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-arm/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_arm.deb MD5 checksum: 43bb5b39c0644a02379d456c0f6552e2 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-arm/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_arm.deb MD5 checksum: 08121fd95be917ac771a06243ccb2b9b http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-arm/apache_1.3.9-14.1_arm.deb MD5 checksum: 9852ce45dcebc5c3381f5a7f2bc95ed6 Intel IA-32 architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-i386/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_i386.deb MD5 checksum: 1d4b57055b1f292d6a970a66294f887d http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-i386/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_i386.deb MD5 checksum: 857a57d16e39b52c4f29884e3b6d8140 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-i386/apache_1.3.9-14.1_i386.deb MD5 checksum: 97e213fda0d0ff92036f368721239562 Motorola 680x0 architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-m68k/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_m68k.deb MD5 checksum: d3aa0224fcef26d6698b7a6832f797e3 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-m68k/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_m68k.deb MD5 checksum: 089f975084015cecafbb3961e9f1aa6b http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-m68k/apache_1.3.9-14.1_m68k.deb MD5 checksum: ed03ccfea9a18cb828f6804f3f5169af PowerPC architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-powerpc/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_powerpc.deb MD5 checksum: a67c40c388a887f51e14b71386847fe8 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-powerpc/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_powerpc.deb MD5 checksum: 1d0e323a6298611fb18b9e856de9c2b3 http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-powerpc/apache_1.3.9-14.1_powerpc.deb MD5 checksum: 6afbf9a5c97fcf25567bd9b10764df6c Sun Sparc architecture: http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-sparc/apache-common_1.3.9-14.1_sparc.deb MD5 checksum: 3a41a937db7b1f748077d079d72dacba http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-sparc/apache-dev_1.3.9-14.1_sparc.deb MD5 checksum: 1aca3619e9b5a045e3b2551a3be5a61c http://security.debian.org/dists/stable/updates/main/binary-sparc/apache_1.3.9-14.1_sparc.deb MD5 checksum: 1c7954b8b80a776267668a01e93660df These packages will be moved into the stable distrib
Re: Are current Apache debs affected by new bug?
I believe if you read the debian-devel recent archivessomeone already has. Phil On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:33:10AM -0400, Loren Jordan wrote: > According to the notice on Apache's web site, this is an exploit for a > denial of service but not a way to run bogus commands on the exploited > machine (for 32 bit machines). > > Has anybody verified this? Is there any time frame for us to expect an > updated apache.deb on security.d.o? > > > The notice from iss.net shows a 1 line patch to the http_protocol.c file, > but a previous message in this thread says it might not/doesn't fix the > problem. > > Is this where the fix needs to be? I would be happy to get that snippet > from cvs and whip up my own apache.deb until there is an official security > release. > > Thanks for any info. > Loren > > > At 05:18 AM 6/18/2002 -0500, David Stanaway wrote: > >On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 04:07, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> Previously Timm Gleason wrote: > >> > I looked through the changelogs and the changelog.Debian files, but > >> > couldn't conclusively decide if the current vulnerability in Apache has > >> > been taken care of or not. Anyone else know? > >> > >> Yes, it's not fixed yet. > >> > > > >according to Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on bugtraq, > >> 3) Casting to unsigned int does not help that much if the variable in > >> question is a long. > >> > >> The Apache CVS repository now seems contain a correct patch. > > > > > >-- > >David Stanaway > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > pgpTuiVxKnSTM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Are current Apache debs affected by new bug?
Previously Loren Jordan wrote: > Has anybody verified this? Is there any time frame for us to expect an > updated apache.deb on security.d.o? I hope to have a security advisory done by the end of today. > The notice from iss.net shows a 1 line patch to the http_protocol.c file, > but a previous message in this thread says it might not/doesn't fix the > problem. It indeed doesn't. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are current Apache debs affected by new bug?
According to the notice on Apache's web site, this is an exploit for a denial of service but not a way to run bogus commands on the exploited machine (for 32 bit machines). Has anybody verified this? Is there any time frame for us to expect an updated apache.deb on security.d.o? The notice from iss.net shows a 1 line patch to the http_protocol.c file, but a previous message in this thread says it might not/doesn't fix the problem. Is this where the fix needs to be? I would be happy to get that snippet from cvs and whip up my own apache.deb until there is an official security release. Thanks for any info. Loren At 05:18 AM 6/18/2002 -0500, David Stanaway wrote: On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 04:07, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Timm Gleason wrote: > > I looked through the changelogs and the changelog.Debian files, but > > couldn't conclusively decide if the current vulnerability in Apache has > > been taken care of or not. Anyone else know? > > Yes, it's not fixed yet. > according to Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on bugtraq, > 3) Casting to unsigned int does not help that much if the variable in > question is a long. > > The Apache CVS repository now seems contain a correct patch. -- David Stanaway -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are current Apache debs affected by new bug?
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 04:07, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Timm Gleason wrote: > > I looked through the changelogs and the changelog.Debian files, but > > couldn't conclusively decide if the current vulnerability in Apache has > > been taken care of or not. Anyone else know? > > Yes, it's not fixed yet. > according to Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on bugtraq, > 3) Casting to unsigned int does not help that much if the variable in > question is a long. > > The Apache CVS repository now seems contain a correct patch. -- David Stanaway signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Are current Apache debs affected by new bug?
Previously Timm Gleason wrote: > I looked through the changelogs and the changelog.Debian files, but > couldn't conclusively decide if the current vulnerability in Apache has > been taken care of or not. Anyone else know? Yes, it's not fixed yet. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
