On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:45:41PM -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> Package: openssl
> Version: 0.9.8g-15+lenny6
> Tags: lenny,security,patch
>
> This bug report is based upon CVE-2009-3245
> OpenSSL before 0.9.8m does not check for a NULL return value from bn_wexpand
> function calls in (1) crypto/bn/bn_div.c, (2) crypto/bn/bn_gf2m.c, (3)
> crypto/ec/ec2_smpl.c, and (4) engines/e_ubsec.c, which
> has unspecified impact and context-dependent attack vectors.
>
> http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2009-3245
>
> While the security-tracker includes a "Minor issue" comment in the notes, the
> CVE
> states "NVD severity high (attack range: remote)" so perhaps there should
> be a security update for the version in Debian stable.
The security team didn't seem to agree on the severity.
Looking at the code, I only see those cases returning an error:
if (words > (INT_MAX/(4*BN_BITS2)))
{
BNerr(BN_F_BN_EXPAND_INTERNAL,BN_R_BIGNUM_TOO_LONG);
return NULL;
}
if (BN_get_flags(b,BN_FLG_STATIC_DATA))
{
BNerr(BN_F_BN_EXPAND_INTERNAL,BN_R_EXPAND_ON_STATIC_BIGNUM_DATA);
return(NULL);
}
a=A=(BN_ULONG *)OPENSSL_malloc(sizeof(BN_ULONG)*words);
if (A == NULL)
{
BNerr(BN_F_BN_EXPAND_INTERNAL,ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE);
return(NULL);
}
So the most likely cause is malloc failing. And I think if
you can can trigger that, more things will go wrong.
Anyway, I should probably fix this in a point release.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
