bugtraq - Re: ClamAV Multiple Rem0te Buffer Overflows

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.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:06:30 +0000
From: list@...0te.com
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Cc: coley@...re.org
Subject: Re: ClamAV Multiple Rem0te Buffer Overflows

>But then the advisory only lists 3 formats. 

>So, was this just a typo by the researchers? Or are there really 4 
>bugs, and the latest release still has one bug that hasn't been fixed 
>yet? 

>This demonstrates one of the Four I's of security advisory problems, 
>namely Inconsistency. The other three are Inaccurate, Incomplete, or 
>Incomprehensible. 

The advisory on rem0te.com is correct. On the same note, the release notes by clamav are not completely wrong. They fixed the same mistake in two different processors for the same format. So clamav is probably counting the two instances of the same mistake as one mistake.

Specifically, one of the formats (TNEF) contained two processors with the same mistake: tnef_message() & tnef_attachment(). Both were fixed by the clamav team in 0.86.2.