Advisory from comment 1 added to SVN. Please remove the "advisory" keyword if it needs to be changed. It also helps when obsolete advisories are tagged as "obsolete"

Keywords: (none) => advisory

Suggested advisory:
========================

The updated packages fix a security vulnerability:

An issue was discovered in the function gdev_prn_open_printer_seekable() in Artifex Ghostscript through 10.02.0 allows remote attackers to crash the application via a dangling pointer. (CVE-2023-46751)

References:
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-46751
https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-6551-1
========================

Updated packages in core/updates_testing:
========================
ghostscript-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
ghostscript-X-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
ghostscript-common-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
ghostscript-doc-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
ghostscript-dvipdf-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
ghostscript-module-X-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
lib(64)gs10-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
lib(64)gs-devel-10.00.0-6.4.mga9
lib(64)ijs1-0.35-173.4.mga9
lib(64)ijs-devel-0.35-173.4.mga9

from SRPM:
ghostscript-10.00.0-6.4.mga9.src.rpm

Tested on Real Hardware Mageia 9 x86_64

In current version, open a pdf with gs filepdf.pdf
The pdf open in a window, resize the window and the image in current page is repeated 6 times 

Update to testing versions without issues
Open same pdf with gs filepdf.pdf
The pdf open in a window, resize the window and the image in current page is repeated 6 times 

Not found POC, don't know what more test

Confirm that the behavior as described in Comment 4 still exists in the test versions.

CC: (none) => herman.viaene

As comment#4 is not a regression, I set the OK, maybe we must open a new bug once this packages become official updates

Whiteboard: (none) => MGA9-64-OK

I also see the problem described in comment 4 but it the duplication of content seem not limited - on my 4kScreen i could get 5 copies i width, two in height.
Maybe not a bug, but as designed.
Should be checked on other systems or with upstream before making a bug.

CC: (none) => fri

Wouldn't be easier to backport just ghostscript 10.02.1 to mga9 which already includes the fixes? I'm using it locally since a while, without problems.

CC: (none) => ghibomgx

To me, backport seem logical.

I'd be OK with that. But you still need a new bug for the backport request.

Validating this one, to get this security fix out.

CC: (none) => andrewsfarm, sysadmin-bugs
Keywords: (none) => validated_update

(In reply to Thomas Andrews from comment #10)

> I'd be OK with that. But you still need a new bug for the backport request.
> 
> Validating this one, to get this security fix out.

Sorry, I mistyped, it's not a backport request, but a suggestions to use directly the ghostscript 10.02.1 as version for core/updates, that already include the fixes (and also other improvements) and thus avoiding to backport the single security patches. From what I could test 10.02.1 worked flawlessly (and seems even better than the original 10.00.0), and shouldn't have break the API.

(In reply to Giuseppe Ghibò from comment #11)

> (In reply to Thomas Andrews from comment #10)
> 
> > I'd be OK with that. But you still need a new bug for the backport request.
> > 
> > Validating this one, to get this security fix out.
> 
> Sorry, I mistyped, it's not a backport request, but a suggestions to use

with "backport request" I thought request for "core/backports", which is not what I intended.

OK, I see. 

So, suppose I leave the validation to get the security patch out - as long as it's here, tested, and ready - and you file a new bug to update to 10.02.1 for the bugfixes? 

Does that make sense to you?

(In reply to Thomas Andrews from comment #13)
> OK, I see. 
> 
> So, suppose I leave the validation to get the security patch out - as long
> as it's here, tested, and ready - and you file a new bug to update to
> 10.02.1 for the bugfixes? 
> 
> Does that make sense to you?

Yes, if the bug is resolved we can validate this one and keep 10.02.1 for next rounds. With the 10.02.1 indeed I never saw the multiple pages as reported on comment 4.

An update for this issue has been pushed to the Mageia Updates repository.

https://advisories.mageia.org/MGASA-2023-0351.html

Status: ASSIGNED => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => FIXED