mailing list archives
RE: Oracle, where are the patches???
From: "Kornbrust, Alexander" <ak () red-database-security com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 21:33:54 +0200
You are right.
I have only a few things to add.
1.) In the April CPU 2006 patches for 18.104.22.168, Oracle forgot to sanitize
a parameter in one of the SDO packages. Oracle sanitized one parameter
twice (Copy/Paste-Error). Oracle assigned a new bug number (7520291) for
this issue. ==> Such bugs are a indication of a bad Q/A.
2.) 2 weeks ago I found a way to bypass dbms_assert in many cases.
Oracle is already informed. This means that many Oracle packages are
vulnerable again and the bugfixes against SQL Injection are often
I hope Oracle will fix most of the bugs until end of 2008.
Here my quote of the day...
"Oracle said that since its critical patch update is tested across
product suites, the company is limited in the number of fixes it can
From: David Litchfield [mailto:davidl () ngssoftware com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:10 PM
To: bugtraq () securityfocus com; full-disclosure () lists grok org uk;
ntbugtraq () listserv ntbugtraq com
Subject: Oracle, where are the patches???
A regular patch release cycle is a good thing. It allows system
administrators to plan ahead and minimize server downtime. If I, as a
administrator, know that on the 18th of April 2006 a critical patch is
to be released I'll plan to stay late at work that night and start the
assessment of the patch before I install it. All going well, I can
the patch and reboot the server all with a minimum amount of downtime.
should happen once a month or once a quarter - whatever interval my
has chosen. That's what good regular patches allow me to do. The
are absolutely clear.
There are two major problems that can cause these benefits to
thin air, however. These are
1) Late Patches - If patches aren't delivered on the day they were
to be, then all my planning ahead has gone to waste and a new plan
2) Re-issued Patches - If a vendor has to reissue a patch then I have
reinstall it - which costs me more money and more server downtime. The
times the patch is re-issued the more it eats into my budget.
Since starting its regular quarterly patch release cycle Oracle has
guilty of both.
Most recently, Oracle informed us that on the 18th of April 2006 that
Critical Patch Update would be released. This date had been planned
a year so why, on that date, were patches not ready for versions
10.1.0.4, 10.1.0.3, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199 and only partial patches for
Further, patches were only available for versions 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206 and
10.2.0.1 which means patches are available for only 33% of their
versions - what about the poor people running the other 66%?
These 66% were told that their patches would be available on the 1st
2006. In all fairness, the 1st of May was an "Estimated Time of
but boy - was that estimate way off! The ETA has now been revised to
15th of May - a whole month after the supposed patch release day.
What about Oracle's track record on patch re-issuance? Let's look -
January 2006 critical patch update was re-issued seven times, the
2005 CPU three times and the July 2005 CPU was re-issued nine times.
story is the same for earlier CPUs.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary to what you'd have us believe about
security track record, it's not looking too good from my view.
+44 (0) 208 401 0070