|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | VUL-0: CVE-2004-1152: acroread buffer overflow | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Novell Products] SUSE Security Incidents | Reporter: | Ludwig Nussel <lnussel> |
| Component: | Incidents | Assignee: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 - Medium | CC: | security-team |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | CVE-2004-1152: CVSS v2 Base Score: 10.0 (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C) | ||
| Found By: | --- | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Ludwig Nussel
2004-12-15 18:25:03 UTC
Ah! The usual acroread security trouble. Why the hell insists our management to use it by default? As it is the usual stuff and hapens every few month I reduce priority to normal - simply because it IS normal for acroread. There is already version 5.0.10
The README states
------------------------------------------------------------------
New for Acrobat Reader 5.0.10
A security patch was applied that solves a problem reported
with malformed mail containing pdf attachments.
------------------------------------------------------------------
But the acroread shell script is still
------------------------------------------------------------------
if [ -f "$ACRO_EXEC_CMD" ] ; then
exec "$ACRO_EXEC_CMD" ${1+"$@"}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore I don't know if 5.0.10 solves the problem or
if I should additionally add the above "for CHECK ... do ... done".
In any case I think we should upgrade the version to be safe not to
miss any other security related stuff but I NEEDINFO what I should do
regarding "for CHECK ... do ... done".
The bug apparently is inside the acroread binary and must be fixed there. The shellscript snippet is just a workaround and not needed if adobe has actually fixed the problem. We cannot verify this with neither source code nor proof of concept exploit though. For testing here is an RPM: ~jsmeix/Export/acroread-5.0.10-1.i586.rpm Note that there is a problem with the version number which was wrong before - it was 5.09 but it should have been 5.0.9 Now I don't know how to increase the version number so that RPM recognizes that it is really higher (5.0.10 < 5.09). Should I simply continue to use wrong version numbers like 5.10 ? Regarding comment #3: Therefore I would like to upgrade the version. But my question was because in the initial report there is ------------------------------------------------------------------------ They are talking about email all the time but that doesn't make any sense to me. It rather sounds like anything you open with acroread is potentially dangerous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore again my question: Should I _additionally_ add the "for CHECK ... do ... done" test to the acroread shell script? wrt version I'd probably use 5.010 that should be equivalent to 5.10 AFAIK but includes a leading zero to not confuse it with 5.1.0. wrt shell script thingie, I can't judge. It would probably cripple acroread if it's normally useable for other things than plain pdf (which the original report indicates). There is also no guarantee that "file" is always right. I'll ask idefense, maybe they can give us some exploit or know more details. i think the shell script does not need to be fixed. iDefense doesn't want to give us details or PoC code. They said we should contact Nils Puhlmann (puhlmann@adobe.com) if we want to know more. At the moment only submitted acroread-5.010 to STABLE. Reagrding this bug: It is not clear at the moment whether or not an additional test in the acroread shell script is required. I will ask Nils Puhlmann (puhlmann@adobe.com). No, the check is NOT required. There is a request for approvement for the acroread version update on prjmgr@suse.de Please tell me when I can start to submit 5.0.10 and please tell me exactly for which distributions I sould submit it. Ralf approved it for sles. You need to submit packages for all maintained distros, i.e. 8.1-9.2 swamp id 79 Submitted for - 9.2-i386 (i.e. SUSE LINUX 9.2) - 9.1-i386 (i.e. SLES9 and SUSE LINUX 9.1) - 9.0-i386 (i.e. SUSE LINUX 9.0) - 8.2-i386 (i.e. SUSE LINUX 8.2) - 8.1-i386 (i.e. SLES8 and SUSE LINUX 8.1) Could you please create the necessary patchinfo and putonftp and "Laufzettel" and whatever required other files. (I have no idea what "swamp id 79" means.) Reassign to security team. approved. CVE-2004-1152: CVSS v2 Base Score: 10.0 (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C) |