This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: vulnerabilities in libbfd (CVE-2014-beats-me)

On 28 Oct 2014 15:43, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >  I agree sanitising pointers calculated based on data taken from 
> > > untrusted sources, including broken or deliberately corrupted 
> > > executables, is a must.
> > 
> > sure, but honestly, invoking bfd in any sort of security sensitive context is a 
> > terrible terrible idea.  it's full of range issues like this (by nature of its 
> > job), and will continue to be so.  unless we switch to a language like python 
> > where exceeding memory ranges is guaranteed to not access invalid memory (not 
> > that i'm suggesting that).
>  Well, maybe BFD and consequently `strings' are not something designed 
> with security particularly in mind and maybe the C programming language 
> does help with it either and things have to be taken care of manually.  
> Maybe BFD and all the surrounding code is twisted and hard to follow.
>  But that is not an excuse nor does justify sloppy coding.

i'm not suggesting we shouldn't have proper range checks everywhere.  i'm merely 
accepting the reality of the code base, and the quality/quantity of code flowing 
in from contributors.  no matter how many audits the code base went through, i 
don't think it'd ever be trust worthy in sensitive contexts.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]