Hi Frank!
Frank Küster [2005-12-08 13:17 +0100]:
> Martin Pitt <martin.pitt@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm currently preparing Ubuntu security updates for these issues, and
> > I noticed that the upstream provided patch is wrong. I sent the mail
> > below to upstream (and some others).
> >
> > Can you please check that you indeed fixed (tetex-bin)/will fix
> > (poppler) DCTStream::readProgressiveSOF(), too?
> [...]
> > It seems that the patch linked from these advisories [1] is a little
> > bit flawed: it checks numComps twice in DCTStream::readBaselineSOF(),
> > but does not check it in DCTStream::readProgressiveSOF().
>
> We have the same flaw in our upload. Would you be so kind and check the
> updated patch at
>
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-tetex/tetex-bin/trunk/debian/patches/patch-CVE-2005-3191+2+3?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
The DCTStream::readProgressiveSOF() seems to be correct now, however,
there is still a flaw in
- img.tiles = (JPXTile *)gmalloc(img.nXTiles * img.nYTiles *
- sizeof(JPXTile));
+ nTiles = img.nXTiles * img.nYTiles;
+ // check for overflow before allocating memory
+ if (nTiles == 0 || nTiles / img.nXTiles != img.nYTiles) {
+ error(getPos(), "Bad tile count in JPX SIZ marker segment");
+ return gFalse;
+ }
+ img.tiles = (JPXTile *)gmalloc(nTiles * sizeof(JPXTile));
gmalloc does a multiplication which is not checked for integer
overflows. xpdf uses gmallocn() which does that check.
I'll send you an updated patch very soon, I just finished patching
tetex-bin 2.0.2, cupsys, xpdf, poppler, etc.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature