bugtraq - Re: Buffer Overflow in ActivePerl ?

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

Message-ID: <20040519090015.GA9557@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:00:15 +0100
From: David Cantrell <david@...trell.org.uk>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Cc: support@...ivestate.com
Subject: Re: Buffer Overflow in ActivePerl ?

[CCed to activestate in case they were unaware of the discussion on
bugtraq - activestate people, see the archives]

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 03:23:16PM -0700, Drew Copley wrote:

> The beauty of holes in perl itself is the possibility that
> it could affect a widerange of perl scripts out there sleeping on
> people's webservers, though.

This isn't really a hole in perl itself, but in the particular build of
perl compiled and shipped by one particular vendor.  I can not replicate
this on OpenBSD, Debian Linux, or Solaris.  Nor can I replicate it using
the version of perl supplied with Cygwin.

I'd be interested to hear if a similar bug exists in Activestate's build
of perl for Linux and Solaris, which I didn't try.

In any case, if an attacker can inject his choice of data into a
system() function, then all bets are off so this is not something that
the users should worry too much about.

-- 
David Cantrell | Benevolent Dictator | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

<davorg> clowns are scary
<gbjk>   I concur. It's their motivation that worries me.
    -- in #london.pm