Re: Re: CVE Request (pidgin)

Hi Vincent,
* Vincent Danen <vdanen@...> [2008-07-03 21:42]:
> * [2008-07-01 17:25:40 -0400] Steven M. Christey wrote:
> >Name: CVE-2008-2957
> >Status: Candidate
> >URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-2957
> >Reference: MISC:http://crisp.cs.du.edu/?q=ca2007-1
> >Reference: MLIST:[oss-security] 20080627 CVE Request (pidgin)
> >Reference: URL:http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2008/06/27/3
> >
> >The UPnP functionality in Pidgin 2.0.0, and possibly other versions,
> >allows remote attackers to trigger the download of arbitrary files and
> >cause a denial of service (memory or disk consumption) via a UDP
> >packet that specifies an arbitrary URL.
> 
> There are patches with the original advisory for these two.  Has anyone
> had a chance to look at them to make sure they're ok?  I don't see any
> references to any of these issues on the pidgin website and no vendors
> have issued pidgin updates for these that I can see, so I'm wondering if
> anyone has looked at these patches (be it vendors or upstream) to
> determine whether or not they're sufficient and/or suitable to apply to
> a security update.

I just had a look at http://crisp.cs.du.edu/crisp-files/pidgin-2.0.0-upnp-limit-download.diff 
to fix CVE-2008-2957. I think the patch itself is fine 
however I am not sure if this is the right way to fix the 
issue cause I basically just workarounds the problem by 
limiting the downloads triggered by UPnP (128k) without 
giving any way to reconfigure this value or to switch it off 
completely. This may be the reason why there isn't yet an 
official patch by the pidgin people.

If you want to go with that simple workaround the patch is 
just fine.
Cheers
Nico
--

-- 
Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - nion@... - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.