From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: CVE-2016-0634 code execution in Bash prompt when expanding
	hostname
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:42:15 +0900
Message-ID: <87d1jxi7jc.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20160920205530.GA21257@jasmine>
	<20160921052048.GA21274@jocasta.intra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45432)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bmjfE-0007Ro-V0
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:42:25 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bmjfA-0006A1-Mz
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:42:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160921052048.GA21274@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message
	of "Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:20:48 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:55:30PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
>      Any advice on how we should handle CVE-2016-0634?
>=20=20=20=20=20=20
>      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,

=E2=80=A6 or if a privilege application like a DHCP client can be made to s=
et
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.

Chet proposed a patch:

  http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q3/att-538/prompt-string-comsub.patch

IIUC, the just-released 4.4 isn=E2=80=99t affected, right?

We should at least update it in core-updates, but core-updates won=E2=80=99=
t be
merged until we have fixed that Binutils/MIPS issue (which shouldn=E2=80=99=
t be
too hard, but we never know!).

I=E2=80=99m somewhat unavailable these days; could someone look into it?

Thanks for the heads-up Leo, as usual!

Ludo=E2=80=99.