|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > oss-security archives|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Steven M. Christey wrote:
> The risk may be very minimal, but the FORTIFY_SOURCE protection
> mechanism is not working "as advertised" - it can be manipulated for
> an admittedly-small information leak.
For the sake of correctness, protective technology that kicks in in the
Dan's example is stack protector, not FORTIFY_SOURCE. Though it's
probably still glibc to blame for using the same error-reporting
function in both cases.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:49:20 +0200 Nico Golde wrote:
> As this also works for setuid programs it would be nice to get one
> assigned and have this patched.
It seems the fix would need to remove all possibly-useful info from the
-- Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Security Response Team