Skip to contentSkip to conversation

package/audiofile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

PATCH New Peter Korsgaard 2 participants 16 messages Feb 19, 2020 – Feb 20, 2020

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/5 package/audiofile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

---
 package/audiofile/audiofile.mk | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
package/audiofile/audiofile.mk +16 -0
index 2f2e8902e9..bb46436d85 100644
@@ -15,6 +15,22 @@ AUDIOFILE_AUTORECONF = YES
 AUDIOFILE_LICENSE = GPL-2.0+, LGPL-2.1+
 AUDIOFILE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING COPYING.GPL
 
+# 0003-Always-check-the-number-of-coefficients.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += \
+	CVE-2017-6827 CVE-2017-6828 CVE-2017-6832 \
+	CVE-2017-6833 CVE-2017-6835 CVE-2017-6837
+# 0004-clamp-index-values-to-fix-index-overflow-in-IMA.cpp.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2017-6829
+# 0005-Check-for-multiplication-overflow-in-sfconvert.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += \
+	CVE-2017-6830 CVE-2017-6834 CVE-2017-6836 CVE-2017-6838
+# 0006-Actually-fail-when-error-occurs-in-parseFormat.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2017-6831
+# 0007-Check-for-multiplication-overflow-in-MSADPCM-decodeS.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2017-6839
+# 0008-CVE-2015-7747.patch
+AUDIOFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2015-7747
+
 ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_FLAC),y)
 AUDIOFILE_DEPENDENCIES += flac
 AUDIOFILE_CONF_OPTS += --enable-flac
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
#2 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

In reply to Peter Korsgaard

Also mark CVE-2018-13419 as disputed.

---
 package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk +11 -0
index 22909ffb62..4a375ab609 100644
@@ -10,6 +10,17 @@ LIBSNDFILE_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 LIBSNDFILE_LICENSE = LGPL-2.1+
 LIBSNDFILE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 
+# 0001-double64_init-Check-psf-sf.channels-against-upper-bo.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2017-14634
+# 0002-Check-MAX_CHANNELS-in-sndfile-deinterleave.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2018-13139 CVE-2018-19432
+# 0003-a-ulaw-fix-multiple-buffer-overflows-432.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += \
+	CVE-2017-14245 CVE-2017-14246 CVE-2017-17456 CVE-2017-17457 \
+	CVE-2018-19661 CVE-2018-19662
+# disputed
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2018-13419
+
 LIBSNDFILE_CONF_OPTS = \
 	--disable-sqlite \
 	--disable-alsa \
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
#3 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 3 lines · On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:01:59 +0100 Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> wrote:

Also mark CVE-2018-13419 as disputed.

What does "disputed" means in this context ?

Thanks,

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
#4 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:

Quoted 3 lines · On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:01:59 +0100 Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> wrote:

Also mark CVE-2018-13419 as disputed.

What does "disputed" means in this context ?

That someone related to the project claims that it isn't a security issue or cannot reproduce the issue.

Specifically for this CVE, see the discussion here:

https://github.com/erikd/libsndfile/issues/398

Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
#5 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 8 lines · On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:37:04 +0100 Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line

What does "disputed" means in this context ?

That someone related to the project claims that it isn't a security issue or cannot reproduce the issue.

Specifically for this CVE, see the discussion here:

https://github.com/erikd/libsndfile/issues/398

That's the kind of thing I assumed, but perhaps we need to add at least this link next to the IGNORE_CVES line ?

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
#6 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:

Quoted 5 lines · On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:37:04 +0100 Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 1 line

What does "disputed" means in this context ?

That someone related to the project claims that it isn't a security issue or cannot reproduce the issue.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Specifically for this CVE, see the discussion here:

https://github.com/erikd/libsndfile/issues/398

That's the kind of thing I assumed, but perhaps we need to add at least this link next to the IGNORE_CVES line ?

Do you think so? We don't really do it for the other things, E.G. we simply claim that a specific patch fixes one or more CVEs, without necessarily providing a lot of details besides the CVE identifier

From the CVE identifier you can then go and look up a bunch of these things, E.G. on the Debian securitytracker or on the NVD website.

In a way, this is quite similar to how we claim specific licenses for a package.

Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
#7 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 7 lines · On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:06:59 +0100 Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines

That's the kind of thing I assumed, but perhaps we need to add at least this link next to the IGNORE_CVES line ?

Do you think so? We don't really do it for the other things, E.G. we simply claim that a specific patch fixes one or more CVEs, without necessarily providing a lot of details besides the CVE identifier

Quoted 5 lines

From the CVE identifier you can then go and look up a bunch of these things, E.G. on the Debian securitytracker or on the NVD website.

In a way, this is quite similar to how we claim specific licenses for a package.

Well, it's not a strong opinion, but I believe:

# disputed, https://github.com/erikd/libsndfile/issues/398

doesn't cost much more than

# disputed

And it directly tells people reading this .mk file what we mean by "disputed", together with the background information about it.

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
#8 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]> writes:

Hi,

Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 9 lines

Do you think so? We don't really do it for the other things, E.G. we simply claim that a specific patch fixes one or more CVEs, without necessarily providing a lot of details besides the CVE identifier

From the CVE identifier you can then go and look up a bunch of these things, E.G. on the Debian securitytracker or on the NVD website.

In a way, this is quite similar to how we claim specific licenses for a package.

Well, it's not a strong opinion, but I believe:

Quoted 8 lines

# disputed, https://github.com/erikd/libsndfile/issues/398

doesn't cost much more than

# disputed

And it directly tells people reading this .mk file what we mean by "disputed", together with the background information about it.

Fine by me. Do notice that the CVE page directly has this info as well, so just knowing the CVE identifer will get you to it very fast:

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-13419
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2018-13419

Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
#9 lore raw

PATCH 2/5 package/libsndfile: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

In reply to Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

"Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> writes:

Also mark CVE-2018-13419 as disputed.

---
 package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk +0 -0
index 22909ffb62..4a375ab609 100644
@@ -10,6 +10,17 @@ LIBSNDFILE_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 LIBSNDFILE_LICENSE = LGPL-2.1+
 LIBSNDFILE_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING

package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk LIBSNDFILE_INSTALL_STAGING = YES · line 21

Quoted 10 lines
package/libsndfile/libsndfile.mk +9 -0
 
+# 0001-double64_init-Check-psf-sf.channels-against-upper-bo.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2017-14634
+# 0002-Check-MAX_CHANNELS-in-sndfile-deinterleave.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2018-13139 CVE-2018-19432
+# 0003-a-ulaw-fix-multiple-buffer-overflows-432.patch
+LIBSNDFILE_IGNORE_CVES += \
+	CVE-2017-14245 CVE-2017-14246 CVE-2017-17456 CVE-2017-17457 \
+	CVE-2018-19661 CVE-2018-19662
+# disputed

Committed after adding the dispute link as suggested by Thomas, thanks.

Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
#10 lore raw

PATCH 3/5 package/libtomcrypt: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

In reply to Peter Korsgaard
---
 package/libtomcrypt/libtomcrypt.mk | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
package/libtomcrypt/libtomcrypt.mk +3 -0
index 583bcb15ff..c2f1babb49 100644
@@ -13,6 +13,9 @@ LIBTOMCRYPT_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 LIBTOMCRYPT_INSTALL_TARGET = NO # only static library
 LIBTOMCRYPT_DEPENDENCIES = libtommath
 
+# 0001-fix-CVE-2019-17362.patch
+LIBTOMCRYPT_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2019-17362
+
 LIBTOMCRYPT_CFLAGS = -I./src/headers $(TARGET_CFLAGS) -DLTC_SOURCE -DLTM_DESC
 
 define LIBTOMCRYPT_BUILD_CMDS
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
#12 lore raw

PATCH 4/5 package/vorbis-tools: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

In reply to Peter Korsgaard
---
 package/vorbis-tools/vorbis-tools.mk | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
package/vorbis-tools/vorbis-tools.mk +8 -0
index 1bec1e2b96..407ea975e7 100644
@@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ VORBIS_TOOLS_LICENSE = GPL-2.0
 VORBIS_TOOLS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 VORBIS_TOOLS_DEPENDENCIES = libao libogg libvorbis libcurl
 VORBIS_TOOLS_CONF_OPTS = --program-transform-name=''
+
+# 0001-oggenc-Fix-large-alloca-on-bad-AIFF-input.patch
+VORBIS_TOOLS_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2015-6749
+# 0002-oggenc-validate-count-of-channels-in-the-header-CVE-.patch
+VORBIS_TOOLS_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2014-9638 CVE-2014-9639
+# 0003-oggenc-fix-crash-on-raw-file-close-reported-by-Hanno.patch
+VORBIS_TOOLS_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2014-9640
+
 # ogg123 calls math functions but forgets to link with libm
 VORBIS_TOOLS_CONF_ENV = LIBS=-lm
 
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
#14 lore raw

PATCH 5/5 package/ipsec-tools: annotate _IGNORE_CVES for the included security patches

In reply to Peter Korsgaard
---
 package/ipsec-tools/ipsec-tools.mk | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
package/ipsec-tools/ipsec-tools.mk +5 -0
index 634d752661..72bd8c196c 100644
@@ -15,6 +15,11 @@ IPSEC_TOOLS_DEPENDENCIES = openssl flex host-pkgconf host-flex host-bison
 # we patch configure.ac
 IPSEC_TOOLS_AUTORECONF = YES
 
+# 0004-CVE-2015-4047.patch
+IPSEC_TOOLS_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2015-4047
+# 0005-CVE-2016-10396.patch
+IPSEC_TOOLS_IGNORE_CVES += CVE-2016-10396
+
 # configure hardcodes -Werror, so override CFLAGS on make invocation
 IPSEC_TOOLS_MAKE_OPTS = CFLAGS='$(TARGET_CFLAGS)'
 
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1