[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Security update for clamav



Hi, 

Sebastian Harl uploaded a security update for clamav in etch backports
which fixes the following issues: 

CVE-2007-6335

It was discovered that an integer overflow in the decompression code for
MEW archives may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

CVE-2007-6336

It was discovered that on off-by-one in the MS-ZIP decompression code
may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

CVE-2007-6337

CVE-2007-6595

It was discovered that temporary files are created insecurely, which may
result in local denial of service by overwriting files.

CVE-2008-0314

Damian Put discovered that a buffer overflow in the handler for PeSpin
binaries may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

CVE-2008-0318

Silvio Cesare discovered an integer overflow in the parser for PE
headers.

CVE-2008-1100

Alin Rad Pop discovered that a buffer overflow in the handler for Upack
PE binaries may lead to the execution of arbitrary code.

<unknown>

Damian Put and Thomas Pollet discovered that a buffer overflow in the
handler for WWPack-compressed PE binaries may lead to the execution of
arbitrary code.

CVE-2008-1387

CVE-2008-1833

CVE-2008-2713

Damian Put discovered a vulnerability in the ClamAV anti-virus toolkit's
parsing of Petite-packed Win32 executables. The weakness leads to an
invalid memory access, and could enable an attacker to crash clamav by
supplying a maliciously crafted Petite-compressed binary for scanning.
In some configurations, such as when clamav is used in combination with
mail servers, this could cause a system to "fail open," facilitating a
follow-on viral attack.

For the etch-backports distribution the problems have been fixed in
version 0.93.1.dfsg-1.1~bpo40+1.

Please upgrade your clamav package as soon as possible if you use clamav from
etch-backports. 

Alex

-- 
Alexander Wirt, formorer@formorer.de 
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA  B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: