bugtraq - Re: vulnerabilities of postscript printers

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20040128164341.GA1987@ercws053.vaih.whnetz>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:43:41 +0100
From: Georg Lutz <glist@....net>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: vulnerabilities of postscript printers


On 2004-01-24, Glynn Clements wrote:
> PostScript has the ability to read/write named files, and nothing
> prohibits an implementation from making peripheral devices or ports
> accessible as named files. E.g. using GhostScript on Linux, the
> following trivial PostScript program sends a WAV file (or the first
> 20kb thereof) to the sound card:
> 
> 	(/dev/dsp) (w) file dup
> 	(foo.wav) (r) file
> 	20000 string readstring pop
> 	writestring flushfile
> 
> [The -dSAFER switch disables file access, and should be used when
> running gs on "untrusted" PostScript files.]
> 

Does this mean, that a Postscript-file is not safer than a MS Word
document?

Shouldnt -dSAFER be then the default option? Or breaks this something
else?

-- 
Georg