[Bug 192983] New: Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

Summary: Remote termination security issue
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: fc5
          Platform: All
               URL: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/434908/30/0/threa
                    ded
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: netpanzer
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],fedora-security-
                    [e-mail]

The netPanzer server is subject to a DOS; it can be made to crash remotely.

Versions 0.8 and lower are vulnerable.

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/434908/30/0/threaded

A CVE has not yet been assigned for this issue.

[Bug 192983] Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-05-24 13:11 EST -------
I'm not sure if I'd call a game that terminates unexpectedly a security risk.

But, to fix we should probably find out what values for FrameNum are acceptable 
and who is causing the problem to fail the ASSERT().

[Bug 192983] Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-05-24 13:17 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'm not sure if I'd call a game that terminates unexpectedly a security risk.

Any less than we'd call a web server that terminates unexpectedly a security
risk?  But hey, if folks want to agree that we don't add remote termination
issues for "noncritical" applications (along with a definition of just what is
considered noncritical) then I'll abide by that.  Does the perception change if
a CVE is issued?

[Bug 192983] Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-05-24 17:37 EST -------
Any fixes would be good to include. I'm currently watching this issue, as I am 
not a good programmer, I can't look at the source code at the time. However 
I'll try to make some efforts on this. If you have any updates, tell me. 
Regarding bug #192990, I'll look, make a patch from svn and update the 
release. Thanks for the attention.

[Bug 192983] CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Remote termination security |CVE-2006-2575 Remote
                   |issue                       |termination security issue

[Bug 192983] CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-06 14:16 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=130628)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130628&action=vie...)
Patch fixing this CVE

Since no-one else was doing it I've taken a look at this, with as a result the
attached patch which fixes this.

I confirmed the crash with the exploit given in the URL above, and checked that
it no longer crashes with this patch.

I however didnot check if this influences play in anyway, someone who actually
plays the game should test this, especially the flag selection for a player.
Although I believe that there should be no influence.

p.s.

Whats going on with getting the fix for the other vulnerability from SVN?

[Bug 192983] CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CURRENTRELEASE
   Fixed In Version|                            |0.8-4

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-09 11:44 EST -------
Thanks Hans, I've applied your patch and it works fine! (Tested too)

[Bug 192983] CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: CVE-2006-2575 Remote termination security issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192983

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CURRENTRELEASE
   Fixed In Version|                            |0.8-4

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-14 09:17 EST -------
Package fixed. Closing. Thanks!