OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Renaud Deraison (deraisoncvs.nessus.org)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 15:21:47 CDT

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 06:52:23PM +0200, Roman Drahtmueller wrote:
    > > **** 4.0.3 FIXES A BUFFER OVERFLOW PRESENT IN ALL VERSIONS OF 4.0 --
    > > PLEASE UPGRADE IMMEDIATELY ***
    >
    > We hope that this information is accurate. Version 4.0.2 is not on the ftp
    > server any more, and there is no patch from 4.0.2 to 4.0.3.
    > We currently feel handicapped in our efforts to check the code for the
    > changes wrt the buffer overflow.

    The buffer overflow took place when a too long argument was supplied
    to the USER command (and apparently to some other commands too).

    Here's the gdb backtrace I did save when I investigated this issue
    thanks to Gustavo Viscaino (see
    http://www.nessus.com/bugs/nessus/fixed?id=385 if you are curious
    about why I'm involved in this)

    (note that the command was USER XXXXX[....]XXXXX\r\n)

    Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
    strcpy (dest=0xbfffca95 'X' <repeats 200 times>...,
        src=0xbfffca54 'X' <repeats 200 times>...)
        at ../sysdeps/generic/strcpy.c:38
    38 ../sysdeps/generic/strcpy.c: No such file or directory.
    (gdb) bt
    #0 strcpy (dest=0xbfffca95 'X' <repeats 200 times>...,
        src=0xbfffca54 'X' <repeats 200 times>...)
        at ../sysdeps/generic/strcpy.c:38
    #1 0x805078c in pop_user (p=0xbfffca2c) at pop_user.c:198
    #2 0x8050e58 in qpopper (argc=1482184792, argv=0x58585858) at
    popper.c:321
    #3 0x58585858 in ?? ()
    Cannot access memory at address 0x58585858

    Unfortunately, I did not get a copy of qpopper 4.0.2, so I can't really
    show where the exact bug was.

    > If the above statement is right, then SuSE distributions are not
    > vulnerable. However, we wish to double-check such a claim. All kinds of

    I really think it's not vulnerable. Qpopper 3.0.x is immune to this bug too.

                                    -- Renaud