Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-05:01.telnet
From: Colin Percival (cperciva_at_freebsd.org)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:36:56 -0800 To: Steve Kiernan <email@example.com>
Steve Kiernan wrote:
> I was looking at this patch, but there seems to be an error in it:
> unsigned char slc_reply;
> +unsigned char const * const slc_reply_eom = &slc_reply[sizeof(slc_reply)];
> unsigned char *slc_replyp;
> Should the value for slc_reply_eom not be this instead?
> unsigned char const * const slc_reply_eom = &slc_reply[sizeof(slc_reply) - 1];
> Considering the conditionals are the following:
> + if (&slc_replyp[6+2] > slc_reply_eom)
> + return;
> .. and ..
> + /* The end of negotiation command requires 2 bytes. */
> + if (&slc_replyp > slc_reply_eom)
> + return;
> If you don't subtract 1 from the sizeof(slc_reply) or change the
> conditional operators to >=, then you could try to write one byte past
> the end of the buffer.
The tests are written a bit oddly, but I'm fairly certain that they
are correct. &slc_replyp[6+2] and &slc_replyp are not the
addresses of the last bytes which will be written; rather, they are
the addresses of the byte after the last byte which will be written.
Taking the second example, if slc_replyp == slc_reply + 126, then we
will have &slc_replyp == slc_reply_eom, but (looking at the code)
the two final bytes will be written into slc_reply and
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"