full-disclosure - Re: Python 2.5 (Modules/zlib) minigzip local buffer overflow vulnerability

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: <200703160201.29369.abarrera@iron-gate.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:01:29 +0100
From: Alejandro Barrera <abarrera@...n-gate.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 (Modules/zlib) minigzip local
	buffer overflow vulnerability

> > Thus, replacing strcpy(3) calls with strncpy(3) can have definite
> > impacts on performance.
>
> But the question is how big impact? Its a security/speed trade-off.

That depends on your actual code. It's not a security/speed trade-off, it's a
_I_don't_fucking_care_about_anything_and_I_use_the_easiest_function/speed 
trade-off.

If you care about security AND speed then you use strcpy() correctly, if 
you're a lazy bastard and don't care about speed, then use strncpy().

Anyway, usually you should fill the whole buffer, so if you know how to code, 
it shouldn't have a big impact. *BUT* if you're one of those lazy guys that 
just allocate a 1024 char buffer to copy 32 char strings then you have worse 
problems than security.

>
> Regards.

-- 
Alejandro Barrera García-Orea
R&D Engineer
c/ Alcala 268 28027 Madrid
Office: +34 91 326 66 11
Fax: +34 91 326 66 11
e-mail: abarrera@...n-gate.net

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