Bugzilla – Bug 1213455
VUL-0: CVE-2020-23911: asn1c: NULL pointer dereference exists in the function _default_error_logger() located in asn1fix.c
Last modified: 2023-07-19 08:19:34 UTC
CVE-2020-23911 An issue was discovered in asn1c through v0.9.28. A NULL pointer dereference exists in the function _default_error_logger() located in asn1fix.c. It allows an attacker to cause Denial of Service. References: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2020-23911 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2020-23911 https://github.com/vlm/asn1c/issues/394
No fix upstream yet. Affected: - SUSE:SLE-15:Update - openSUSE:Factory
SLE is unaffected, we don't ship asn1c, only code generated by asn1c. SUSEConnect --product sle-module-basesystem/15.4/x86_64 libasn1c-devel SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 libasn1c1 SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 asn1c SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 It was reported almost 3 years ago and nothing was done about it upstream. Also generally problems from compiling untrusted code cannot be considered very serious vulnerability. I don't see anything happening on our side as realistic other than acknowledging that the problem exists. If anything it's a candidate for dispute.
(In reply to Michal Suchanek from comment #2) > SLE is unaffected, we don't ship asn1c, only code generated by asn1c. > > SUSEConnect --product sle-module-basesystem/15.4/x86_64 > libasn1c-devel SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) > SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 > libasn1c1 SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) > SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 > asn1c SUSE Package Hub (PackageHub/15.4/x86_64) > SUSEConnect --product PackageHub/15.4/x86_64 > > It was reported almost 3 years ago and nothing was done about it upstream. > > Also generally problems from compiling untrusted code cannot be considered > very serious vulnerability. > > I don't see anything happening on our side as realistic other than > acknowledging that the problem exists. > > If anything it's a candidate for dispute. Indeed, thanks for pointing. Let's just close it