Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:
edgeos



Bugtraq: qpopper2.52

qpopper2.52

From: Alan J Rosenthal <flaps_at_DGP.TORONTO.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:51:50 -0400

While diffing the new qpopper distribution with my own modified
qpopper2.41beta directory, I found something interesting in pop_uidl.c
-- interesting to me at least, hopefully y'all on the list will assure me
that it is not, in fact, interesting. I had modified my 2.41beta directory
in accordance with hints on this list, and the diffs found overflow checks
missing in the new pop_uidl.c:

diff -rs qpopper2.41beta1/pop_uidl.c qpopper2.5/pop_uidl.c
60c60
< sprintf(buffer, "%d %.900s", msg_id, mp->uidl_str);

---
>       sprintf(buffer, "%d %s", msg_id, mp->uidl_str);
...
153c149
<       sprintf(buffer, "%d %.900s", msg_id, mp->uidl_str);
---
>       sprintf(buffer, "%d %s", msg_id, mp->uidl_str);
170c166
<           sprintf(buffer, "%d %.900s", x, mp->uidl_str);
---
>           sprintf(buffer, "%d %s", x, mp->uidl_str);
Are these limits in fact unnecessary, or have the qualcomm folks missed a few?
(This file is the same in v2.52 -- got in this morning and started working on
the 2.5 version before I saw last night's bugtraq mail... arggh)
If these limits are indeed necessary, note that there's also a copy of this
sprintf call on line 76.
regards,
Received on Jul 02 1998
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
edgeos