Download Firefox: WindowsMac OS X
logo       
Google Custom Search
    AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Public vulnerabilities in maelstrom: msg#00006

Subject: Public vulnerabilities in maelstrom
Quoting Steve Kemp <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>   Like you I'm working on a couple of things, mostly the things
>  I've been looking at are "public", so I will name names.

When talking about non-free games with public vulnerabilities, I found this
little gem in maelstrom:


static FILE *OpenData(char *mode, char **fname)
{
        static char datafile[BUFSIZ];
        char *home;
        FILE *data;
                                                                               
                                                               
        if ( (home=getenv("HOME")) == NULL ) {
                if ( strcmp(CUR_DIR, DIR_SEP) != 0 ) {
                        home = CUR_DIR;
                } else {
                        home="";
                }
        }
        if ( fname ) {
                *fname = datafile;
        }
        sprintf(datafile,  "%s"DIR_SEP"%s", home, MAELSTROM_DATA);
        if ( (data=fopen(datafile, mode)) == NULL )
                return(NULL);
        return(data);
}


When researching this further, I found that this was an old issue that was
patched in Gentoo a year ago:

[PATCH] http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/322134
[ADVIS] http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/321918
[MORE] 
http://search.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/swsearch/swish.cgi?query=maelstrom&metaname=alldoc&sbm=%2F&start=0

Perhaps someone who's running Debian and is experienced in building .deb
packages could produce an update for this?

(We do audit non-free software like angbard and maelstrom as well, don't we?)

>   One thing that I have been dabbling with is updating some of the 
>  source code scanners to make them invoke 'cpp' first, so that we 
>  only examine code which isn't 'ifdef'd out.  This does have it's 
>  flaws as it means that some platforms which Debian supports might
>  not be examined if my host platform (x86) isn't vulnearble.
> 
>   Interesting thing to do anyway..

Yes, it's interesting. Cigital writes about this in a paper about ITS4:

http://www.cigital.com/papers/download/its4.pdf

-- 
Ulf Harnhammar
http://www.advogato.org/person/metaur/

(lots of URLs in this mail!)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>