CVE List
| Id | CVE No. | Status | Description | Phase | Votes | Comments | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 778 | CVE-1999-0798 | Candidate | Buffer overflow in bootpd on OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux systems via a malformed header type. | Proposed (19991222) | ACCEPT(3) Baker, Ozancin, Stracener | MODIFY(1) Frech | NOOP(1) Christey | Christey> Is CVE-1999-0389 a duplicate of CVE-1999-0798? CVE-1999-0389 | has January 1999 dates associated with it, while CVE-1999-0798 | was reported in late December. | | http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=bugtraq&m=91278867118128&w=2 | | SCO appears to have acknowledged this as well: | ftp://ftp.sco.com/SSE/security_bulletins/SB-99.01a | | The poster also claims that OpenBSD fixed this as well. | Frech> XF:bootp-remote-bo | Christey> Further analysis indicates that this is a duplicate of CVE-1999-0799 | CHANGE> [Christey changed vote from REJECT to NOOP] | Christey> What was I thinking? Brian Caswell pointed out that this is | *not* the same bug as CVE-1999-0799. As reported in the | 1998 Bugtraq post, the bug is in bootpd.c, and is related | to providing an htype value that is used as an index | into an array, and exceeds the intended boundaries of that | array. | View |
| 388 | CVE-1999-0389 | Candidate | Buffer overflow in the bootp server in the Debian Linux netstd package. | Modified (19991207-01) | ACCEPT(3) Baker, Ozancin, Stracener | MODIFY(1) Frech | REVIEWING(1) Christey | Christey> Is CVE-1999-0389 a duplicate of CVE-1999-0798? CVE-1999-0389 | has January 1999 dates associated with it, while CVE-1999-0798 | was reported in late December. | | Also, is this the same line of code as CVE-1999-0914? Both are in | the netstd package, it could look like a library problem. | | However, deep in the changelog in the | netstd_3.07-7slink.3.diff on Debian, Herbert Xu includes | the following entry: | | +netstd (3.07-7slink.1) frozen; urgency=high | + | + * bootpd: Applied patch from Redhat as well as a fix for the overflow in | + report() (fixes #30675). | + * netkit-ftp: Applied patch from RedHat that fixes some obscure overflow | + bugs. | + | + -- Herbert Xu <herbert@debian.org> Sat, 19 Dec 1998 14:36:48 +1100 | | This tells me that two separate bugs are involved. | | Note that Red Hat posted *some* fix for *some* bootp problem | in June 1998. See: | http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/rh42-errata-general.html#bootp | Frech> XF:debian-netstd-bo | Christey> Further analysis indicates that this is a duplicate of CVE-1999-0799 | CHANGE> [Christey changed vote from REJECT to REVIEWING] | Christey> The fix information for BID:324 suggests that there are two | overflows, one of which is in handle_request (bootpd.c) and is | likely related to a file name; but there is another issue in | report (report.c) which also looks like a straightforward | overflow, which would suggest that this is not a duplicate of | CVE-1999-0798 or CVE-1999-0799. | | Note: see comments for CVE-1999-0798 which explain how that | candidate is not related to CVE-1999-0799. | View |
| 4013 | CVE-2001-1209 | Candidate | Directory traversal vulnerability in zml.cgi allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the file parameter. | Proposed (20020315) | ACCEPT(2) Frech, Green | NOOP(4) Cole, Foat, Wall, Ziese | REVIEWING(1) Christey | Christey> INCLUSION: The author of the zml.cgi program says that the vulnerable | version is not his, and that zml.cgi does not take a file parameter. | If this is an adaptation of that zml.cgi program, and the adaptation | is not generally available, then it should not be included in CVE. | Almost all of the hits on Google for "zml.cgi" are references to the | reported vulnerability, and a search for "zml" doesn"t turn up any | obvious web pages, so it cannot be determined if there is another | product that happens to use a script named zml.cgi. | View |
| 3946 | CVE-2001-1142 | Candidate | ArGoSoft FTP Server 1.2.2.2 uses weak encryption for user passwords, which allows an attacker with access to the password file to gain privileges. | Proposed (20020315) | ACCEPT(2) Baker, Frech | NOOP(7) Armstrong, Christey, Cole, Foat, Green, Wall, Ziese | Christey> In an e-mail response, the vendor stated that they were | not a crypto expert and were using their own home-grown | crypto. | CHANGE> [Baker changed vote from REVIEWING to ACCEPT] | Baker> I received an email from Artchil Gogava, of Argosoft, author | of the program in question. I think this is sufficient verification | that the problem is probably as identified. He states he is not an | encryption expert, and that he invented his own encryption mechanism | for this. Need I say more? | | >>>EMAIL<<< | ///// | Subject: Re: Encryption in ArgoSoft FTP Server | Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:14:29 -0400 | From: "Artchil Gogava" <archie@argosoft.com> | To: "David Baker" <bakerd@mitre.org> | References: 1 | | Hello David, | | lnk problem, described in the document, has been fixed ages ago, and it does | not present in 1.2.2.2. As of password encryption. I am not an encryption | expert. I am using a method invented by myself, and I am sure that whatever | I do, someone, who has spare time to play around with it, will find the | method to decrypt it. | | Archie | View |
| 8992 | CVE-2004-0564 | Candidate | Roaring Penguin pppoe (rp-ppoe), if installed or configured to run setuid root contrary to its design, allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files. NOTE: the developer has publicly disputed the claim that this is a vulnerability because pppoe "is NOT designed to run setuid-root." Therefore this identifier applies *only* to those configurations and installations under which pppoe is run setuid root despite the developer"s warnings. | Assigned (20040614) | NOOP(1) Christey | Christey> In addition to the public statement made to Bugtraq, David | F. Skoll, the developer of pppoe, says: | >CVE-2004-0564 is a | >bogus "vulnerability". rp-pppoe is NOT meant to be installed | >setuid-root. One might as well file a "vulnerability" on "cat" | >because if "cat" is setuid-root, then an "attacker" can read any file | >on the system. | > | >This vulnerability is more properly a Debian vulnerability because | >Debian ... insecurely installs rp-pppoe suid-root. | > | >Please add my comments to the "Comments" field of the CVE; I don"t think | >it should be blessed with an official listing. | View |
Page 304 of 20943, showing 5 records out of 104715 total, starting on record 1516, ending on 1520
