RE: remote DoS in Mozilla 1.0

From: Jon Keating (jkeatingat_private)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 11:42:14 PDT

  • Next message: Mikael Olsson: "Flawed workaround in MS02-027 -- gopher can run on _any_ port, not just 70"

    From what I have received personally from my post, 2 * resolution_height
    sounds like a good idea.
    
    Jon
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Keith Warno [mailto:keith.warnoat_private]
    > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:48 AM
    > To: 'Tom'; bugtraqat_private
    > Subject: RE: remote DoS in Mozilla 1.0
    > 
    > 
    > |  -----Original Message-----
    > |  From: Tom [mailto:tomat_private]
    > |  Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:20 AM
    > |  To: bugtraqat_private
    > |  Subject: remote DoS in Mozilla 1.0
    > |
    > 
    > [...]
    > 
    > |
    > |  Vendor Contact
    > |  ==============
    > 
    > [...]
    > 
    > |  also filed with the XFree86 team, no reaction so far
    > |
    > |
    > 
    > 
    > There is chatter but the same type of question regarding "at 
    > what point [is]
    > a request for a font ... clearly invalid" is being asked.
    > 
    > 
    > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:46:56 +0100
    > From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jecat_private>
    > Reply-To: xpertat_private
    > To: xpertat_private
    > Subject: Re: [Xpert]abort() in libXfont 4.2.0 (was FW: remote DoS in
    >     Mozilla 1.0)
    > 
    > From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jecat_private>
    > Subject: Re: [bugtraq] remote DoS in Mozilla 1.0
    > To: develat_private
    > Date: 12 Jun 2002 08:51:49 +0100
    > 
    > MH> Interesting problem reported on bugtraq:
    > MH> <http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/276120>
    > 
    > I see.  Two bugs here.
    > 
    > One is the dodgy error-handling in the Type 1 backend, which gives up
    > by calling abort() (see the very end of curves.c).  I agree that this
    > is a bug; however, as I'm hoping to phase out the current Type 1
    > backend in favour of one based on FreeType 2 in time for 4.3.0, I do
    > not intend to fix it.
    > 
    > The other problem is that we do not fail a priori requests for very
    > large fonts.  I do agree that this should be done, and I think it
    > should be done at the common layer (above the font backends); could
    > anyone suggest at what point a request for a font is clearly invalid?
    > 
    >                                         Juliusz
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > Xpert mailing list
    > Xpertat_private
    > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
    > 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 17:25:17 PDT