From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: CVE-2016-0634 code execution in Bash prompt when expanding hostname Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:26:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20160927212618.GA1117@jasmine> References: <20160920205530.GA21257@jasmine> <20160921052048.GA21274@jocasta.intra> <87d1jxi7jc.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54085) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boztb-000538-Gb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:26:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1boztX-0002cd-B1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:26:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d1jxi7jc.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:42:15AM +0900, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > John Darrington skribis: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:55:30PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > > Any advice on how we should handle CVE-2016-0634? > > > > http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/534 > > > > Like the comment there says, it is only a problem if the machine has > > already been owned, > > … or if a privilege application like a DHCP client can be made to set > the host name to $(something bad), which was apparently possible at some > point. > > > so I don't see what the issue is. If there is an issue it is for the > > bash maintainers to patch. Perhaps it's not the most critical bug, but I don't think we can effectively anticipate the full impact of this (or any) bug. It's better to just fix it now that we know about it. > Chet proposed a patch: > > http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/att-538/prompt-string-comsub.patch I've asked Chet if he will add the patch to the bash-4.3-patches FTP directory. If not, we can apply it the "normal" way. > > IIUC, the just-released 4.4 isn’t affected, right? Right. > We should at least update it in core-updates, but core-updates won’t be > merged until we have fixed that Binutils/MIPS issue (which shouldn’t be > too hard, but we never know!). I spent some time looking at the Bash package definition, but I'm stuck on how to handle all the Bash %patch-series machinery. There are currently no patches for Bash 4.4, nor is there an FTP directory corresponding to a future patch series. Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?