[29157] in bugtraq
Re: sendmail 8.12.8 available
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mordechai T. Abzug)
Tue Mar 4 12:25:42 2003
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:39:14 -0500
From: "Mordechai T. Abzug" <morty@frakir.org>
To: Claus Assmann <ca+bugtraq@sendmail.org>
Message-ID: <20030304013914.GA19337@red-sonja.frakir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030303090809.C2136@zardoc.esmtp.org>
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:08:09AM -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
> 8.12.8/8.12.8 2003/02/11
> SECURITY: Fix a remote buffer overflow in header parsing by
> dropping sender and recipient header comments if the
> comments are too long. Problem noted by Mark Dowd
> of ISS X-Force.
> Fix a potential non-exploitable buffer overflow in parsing the
> .cf queue settings and potential buffer underflow in
> parsing ident responses. Problem noted by Yichen Xie of
> Stanford University Compilation Group.
Question: are the header and ident issues *only* remote overflow
problems, or is this also a local vulnerability? Ie. if one has a
system that doesn't run sendmail in daemon mode (-bd), but does make
sendmail available as an SUID root binary for submission to the local
smarthost and does run sendmail is queue-process mode (ie. -q15m), is
the system still vulnerable? Given that the problem is in the header
parsing, I would expect this to be both a remote and a local problem,
but I'd like to make sure before doing lots of upgrades.
Thanks.
- Morty
