bugtraq - [VulnDiscuss] Re: sendmail 8.12.8 available

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:39:14 -0500
From: "Mordechai T. Abzug" <morty@...kir.org>
To: Claus Assmann <ca+bugtraq@...dmail.org>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, vulnwatch@...nwatch.org
Subject: [VulnDiscuss] Re: sendmail 8.12.8 available

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:08:09AM -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:

> 8.12.8/8.12.8	2003/02/11
> 	SECURITY: Fix a remote buffer overflow in header parsing by
> 		dropping sender and recipient header comments if the
> 		comments are too long.  Problem noted by Mark Dowd
> 		of ISS X-Force.
> 	Fix a potential non-exploitable buffer overflow in parsing the
> 		.cf queue settings and potential buffer underflow in
> 		parsing ident responses.  Problem noted by Yichen Xie of
> 		Stanford University Compilation Group.

Question: are the header and ident issues *only* remote overflow
problems, or is this also a local vulnerability?  Ie. if one has a
system that doesn't run sendmail in daemon mode (-bd), but does make
sendmail available as an SUID root binary for submission to the local
smarthost and does run sendmail is queue-process mode (ie. -q15m), is
the system still vulnerable?  Given that the problem is in the header
parsing, I would expect this to be both a remote and a local problem,
but I'd like to make sure before doing lots of upgrades.

Thanks.

- Morty