On 01/03/2013 08:32 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
> Hello Kurt, Steve, vendors,
>
> SWI-Prolog upstream has released [2] 6.2.5 / 6.3.7 versions,
> correcting the following two security flaws:
>
> * Issue #1 (from [2]): ======================= * FIXED: Possible
> buffer overrun in patch canonisation code. Pushes pointers on an
> automatic array without checking for overflow.  Can be used for DoS
> attacks. Will be extremely hard to make it execute arbitrary code.
>
> Relevant upstream patch: [1]
> http://www.swi-prolog.org/git/pl.git/commitdiff/a9a6fc8a2a9cf3b9154b490a4b1ffaa8be4d723c
>
>  References: [2]
> https://lists.iai.uni-bonn.de/pipermail/swi-prolog/2012/009428.html
>
>
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891577

Please use CVE-2012-6089  for this issue.

> * Issue #2 - from [2]: ====================== * SECURITY: Possible
> buffer overflows when expanding file-names with long paths.
> Affects expand_file_name/2.  Can lead to crashes (DoS attacks) and
> possibly execution of arbitrary code if an attacker can control the
> names of the files searched for, e.g., if expand_file_name/2 is
> used in a directory to which an attacker can upload files for which
> he can control the name.
>
> Relevant upstream patch: [4]
> http://www.swi-prolog.org/git/pl.git/commitdiff/b2c88972e7515ada025e97e7d3ce3e34f81cf33e
>
>  References: [5]
> https://lists.iai.uni-bonn.de/pipermail/swi-prolog/2012/009428.html
>
>
[6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891577

Please use CVE-2012-6090 for this issue.

> Could you allocate CVE ids for these? (iilc two should be enough)

Done, thanks!

>
> Thank you && Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat
> Security Response Team
>