bugtraq - Re: Re: [ GLSA 200408-10 ] gv: Exploitable Buffer Overflow

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: <1092512393.6686.15.camel@gibson>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:39:53 +0100
From: Barrie Dempster <barrie@...oot-robot.net>
To: Dan Margolis <krispykringle@...too.org>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com,
   security-alerts@...uxsecurity.com
Subject: Re: Re: [ GLSA 200408-10 ] gv: Exploitable
	Buffer Overflow

Anyone stupid enough to run the code in question should have been left
to it, they deserved it.

If you can't read the code kids, DON'T run it!!

Hugo himself was amazed how effective his prank was, keep it up Hugo I
for one can't get enough of it :), it beats the hell out of the Politics
and XPSP2 posts we've been wading through recently.
If someone spots an on-topic post be sure to alert me. Thanks. :-P

Barrie

On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 18:59, Dan Margolis wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> There seems to be some confusion regarding our recent gv buffer overflow
> GLSA. This GLSA came on the heels of the following fake advisory, which
> also reported a buffer overflow in gv[1]. That advisory contained
> alleged exploit code that, in fact, contained a local DoS exploit.
> 
> The gv vulnerability reported and patched in GLSA 200408-10 is not the
> same as this fictitious vulnerability. The vulnerability patched is the
> same referred to in the CVE reference[2] included in the GLSA, a real
> two-year old vulnerability in gv.
> 
> Please do not run the alleged exploit code listed in the fictigious gv
> advisory, as it is a local DoS exploit. However, all information
> contained in the GLSA is correct, and all Gentoo users should still
> upgrade their gv installations to the latest available version.
> 
> This e-mail is merely meant to clarify some confusion that may have
> resulted from bad information in the relevant Gentoo bug[3] and comments
> on various security mailing lists. The information contained within the
> GLSA is still valid, and therefore no official errata will be issued.
> 
> For more information on Gentoo security policies, please see Gentoo's
> Vulnerability Policy[4].
> 
> [1] http://www.osvdb.org/displayvuln.php?osvdb_id=8399
> [2] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2002-0838
> [3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
> [4] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml
> - --
> Dan Margolis ("KrispyKringle")
> Gentoo Linux Security Coordinator
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
> 
> iQEVAwUBQR5S9rDO2aFJ9pv2AQLl8wgAjoCOX80DmivzloyqB8XkwxD5R2LPqFRN
> +2YK5hlMTi9PJNN/cC78Pvdm4vwH/M1HQJOWf4A9BoC0ERegcqANi/AqHJgw5CPu
> 0ZF3IjNqGwmBM7TRcuQErwpXWFiiOTHaev/AfAnkTWjhJuVLTgVJFz/f91kObY3r
> ys8OugVhvpNUAgL6Sw4EmOAm8KR4bDYqLhmEkGowIbwMU9oG0HwwrXM9iXWokmcz
> A/xrvCAbYWh1UVvwxdz7x5t4idW6c5qMgf4Oou/KmvjLRV0kf2gzp0GB8sFmjvUS
> h38Pg5Fx2se38RxaU8tJKmWv9ze7aknnzTx1avq/QAvdmwpNsV7vxw==
> =xDpJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-- 
Barrie (zeedo) Dempster - Fortiter et Strenue


[ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver www.keyserver.net 0x96025FD0 ]

<spam type="places I think you should go">
Computer Security http://www.bsrf.org.uk
Do something good http://www.lp2p.org
Open Source Vulnerability Database http://www.osvdb.org
</spam>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)