* Guy Harris:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarification. Have you already requested a new CVE
>> name?
>
> Is one needed? The page at
>
> http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-1218
>
> says
>
> Off-by-one buffer overflow in the parse_elements function in
> the
Florian Weimer wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Have you already requested a new CVE
name?
Is one needed? The page at
http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-1218
says
Off-by-one buffer overflow in the parse_elements function in the 802.11
printer code (print-802_11.c)
* Guy Harris:
> Albert Chin wrote:
>> Is CVE-2007-1218 applicable to tcpdump 3.9.4? Doesn't seem so as the
>> line in the following patch was added after 3.9.4:
>
> The problem in 3.9.5 was that the line was wrong.
>
> The problem in 3.9.4 and before was that the line was *absent*.
Thanks for the
Albert Chin wrote:
Is CVE-2007-1218 applicable to tcpdump 3.9.4? Doesn't seem so as the
line in the following patch was added after 3.9.4:
The problem in 3.9.5 was that the line was wrong.
The problem in 3.9.4 and before was that the line was *absent*.
The check makes sure that the amount of
Is CVE-2007-1218 applicable to tcpdump 3.9.4? Doesn't seem so as the
line in the following patch was added after 3.9.4:
Index: print-802_11.c
===
RCS file: /tcpdump/master/tcpdump/print-802_11.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31.2.11
retriev
