full-disclosure - Re: new class of printf issue: int 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]

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:20:15 +0100
From: Thomas <tom@...ctric-sheep.org>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: new class of printf issue: int overflow


> > > But that got me thinking.  *printf return an int, and it's supposed to
> > > be the number of chars written.  So a typical idiom is
> > > 
> > >   size_t memory_needed=snprintf(NULL,0,format_string,...);
> > >   char* ptr=malloc(memory_needed+1);
> > >   sprintf(ptr,format_string,...);
> > This is nothing new.
> > It is documented in the man-page and in the libc sources.
> 
> What is documented in what man page?  Neither the Linux man page nor the
> SUSv3 say anything about integer overflows and what sprintf should
> return in that case.
> 
> And, uh, glibc does not handle the issue, so the libc code does not
> document anything either.

returning a negative value.
 
> Felix

-- 
Tom <tom@...ctric-sheep.org>
fingerprint = F055 43E5 1F3C 4F4F 9182  CD59 DBC6 111A 8516 8DBF

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/