Hi Ola, As being discussed with Salvatore, there is not enough evidence to conclude there is not any issue present on the freeimage side. We need to be on the safe side, like *always*, and with marking freeimage as <not-affected> we would stop tracking the issue. To stay on the safe side, we need to keep tracking the issue.
Hugo mentioned this refactoring commit that *could* have fixed the issue: https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/commit/c887df12a38ff1a2721d0c8a93b74fe1d02701a2 Ref: https://sourceforge.net/p/freeimage/discussion/36111/thread/e06734bed5/#b887/4639 But without any reproducer, it is hard to conclude the issue was fixed. One possibility would be to mark it as <ignored>, but not as <not-affected>. <postponed> wouldn't make sense since the reported hasn't shared any more information in five years. So please, don't close #947478 either. Thanks, El 15/04/24 a las 20:10, Ola Lundqvist escribió: > Hi again > > I also think we should close #947478 but since I guess that should be > done by the regular Debian security team I do not want to do that > without you telling me that it is ok. I have not checked later > releases, but I think it should apply there too. > > Cheers > > // Ola > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 20:03, Ola Lundqvist <o...@inguza.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Santiago and Salvatore > > > > Now I realize what I did wrong. I should have put openjpeg on a line later. > > > > Do you want me to fix that or do you want to do that yourself? > > > > This is my proposal if I change only for buster. > > > > ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ git diff > > diff --git a/data/CVE/list b/data/CVE/list > > index eeae88cade..7d8f058247 100644 > > --- a/data/CVE/list > > +++ b/data/CVE/list > > @@ -347440,13 +347440,17 @@ CVE-2019-12214 (In FreeImage 3.18.0, an > > out-of-bounds access occurs because of m > > - freeimage <unfixed> (bug #947478) > > [bookworm] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream > > fixes are available) > > [bullseye] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream > > fixes are available) > > - [buster] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > + [buster] - freeimage <not-affected> (Do not include openjpeg > > copy since 3.10.0-3) > > [stretch] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > [jessie] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > + - openjpeg2 2.1.0-1 > > NOTE: > > https://sourceforge.net/p/freeimage/discussion/36111/thread/e06734bed5/ > > NOTE: very few information regarding this vulnerability, which > > is seemingly located > > NOTE: in libopenjpeg, not freeimage. Without reproducer or > > stacktrace, this is > > NOTE: nearly unfixable. > > + NOTE: Turned out that the issue is not in freeimage at all, > > but rather in openjpeg. > > + NOTE: For more information see > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2024/04/msg00058.html > > + NOTE: and more specifically > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2024/04/msg00081.html > > CVE-2019-12213 (When FreeImage 3.18.0 reads a special TIFF file, the > > TIFFReadDirectory ...) > > {DSA-4593-1 DLA-2031-1} > > - freeimage 3.18.0+ds2-3 (bug #929597) > > > > Or do you want me to adjust also the no-affected to apply to all relases? > > > > If so it would look like this: > > ola@tigereye:~/git/security-tracker$ git diff > > diff --git a/data/CVE/list b/data/CVE/list > > index eeae88cade..0ce35fbff4 100644 > > --- a/data/CVE/list > > +++ b/data/CVE/list > > @@ -347437,16 +347437,15 @@ CVE-2019-12216 (An issue was discovered in > > libSDL2.a in Simple DirectMedia Layer > > CVE-2019-12215 (A full path disclosure vulnerability was discovered > > in Matomo v3.9.1 w ...) > > - matomo <itp> (bug #448532) > > CVE-2019-12214 (In FreeImage 3.18.0, an out-of-bounds access occurs > > because of mishand ...) > > - - freeimage <unfixed> (bug #947478) > > - [bookworm] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream > > fixes are available) > > - [bullseye] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream > > fixes are available) > > - [buster] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > - [stretch] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > - [jessie] - freeimage <postponed> (Revisit when upstream fixes > > are available) > > + - freeimage <not-affected> (bug #947478) > > + - openjpeg2 2.1.0-1 > > NOTE: > > https://sourceforge.net/p/freeimage/discussion/36111/thread/e06734bed5/ > > NOTE: very few information regarding this vulnerability, which > > is seemingly located > > NOTE: in libopenjpeg, not freeimage. Without reproducer or > > stacktrace, this is > > NOTE: nearly unfixable. > > + NOTE: Turned out that the issue is not in freeimage at all, > > but rather in openjpeg. > > + NOTE: For more information see > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2024/04/msg00058.html > > + NOTE: and more specifically > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2024/04/msg00081.html > > CVE-2019-12213 (When FreeImage 3.18.0 reads a special TIFF file, the > > TIFFReadDirectory ...) > > {DSA-4593-1 DLA-2031-1} > > - freeimage 3.18.0+ds2-3 (bug #929597) > > > > > > // Ola > > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 15:30, Santiago Ruano Rincón > > <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Cyrille, thank you for checking this. However, I don't think the contact > > > address you had sent the email is correct. > > > CVE is maintained by MITRE (not NIST). And there exist several CNAs that > > > could issue CVE IDs for specific products/domains. > > > According to https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2019-12214, that CVE > > > was assigned by MITRE Corporation. > > > > > > According to https://cve.mitre.org/ (or https://www.cve.org/), the > > > correct way to request an update in a CVE entry assigned by MITRE is > > > filling out the form that you can find at: https://cveform.mitre.org/, > > > choosing the appropriate request type. > > > > > > Cyrille, would you mind submitting your update to MITRE instead? > > > > > > > > > Ola, the changes you have made to the security-tracker have been > > > reverted by Salvatore. See dd2656be1f868274d60b1f38aa7a884e3c8123f2. > > > Please, let us know if would you like to propose a proper update. I > > > think it is worth to mention the finding in #947478. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > El 14/04/24 a las 13:39, Ola Lundqvist escribió: > > > > Hi Cyrille > > > > > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > > > > > I'll update the security tracker accordingly. > > > > > > > > // Ola > > > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 at 12:24, Cyrille Bollu <cyri...@bollu.be> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I've performed a more thoroughful investigation and have informed NIST > > > > > that the offending line is actually to be found in openjpeg between > > > > > version 2.0.0 up to (excluding) 2.1.0. > > > > > > > > > > Debian Buster isn't affected as it uses version 2.3.0-2+deb10u2. > > > > > > > > > > Hereunder copy of the email I've sent ot NIST. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Cyrille > > > > > > > > > > >Message-ID: <981f8fc77d9e0fee8399a19e6e4c9c64ceeea9a7.ca...@bollu.be> > > > > > >Subject: CVE-2019-12214: missing vulnerable configuration > > > > > >From: Cyrille Bollu <cyri...@bollu.be> > > > > > >To: cpe_diction...@nist.gov > > > > > >Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:01:43 +0200 > > > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > >User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 > > > > > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > > >X-Evolution-Identity: 953def08ae37ee7006cd76b472f065ecb205f7e1 > > > > > >X-Evolution-Fcc: > > > > > >folder://d19e895bfc6f11c136a14747fb40c471b2a393e7/Sent > > > > > >X-Evolution-Transport: 80f305883d50f910e4b81fcb40b6c46360542068 > > > > > >X-Evolution-Source: > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear NIST, > > > > > > > > > > > >As part of an investigation performed on-behalf of Debian-LTS team, > > > > > >I've found out that CVE-2019-12214 is actualy located in code from > > > > > >the > > > > > >openjpeg project (https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg) which > > > > > >freeimage copied in its source tree. > > > > > > > > > > > >The offending line, "memcpy(l_cp->ppm_data_current, p_header_data, > > > > > >l_N_ppm);", has been introduced in version 2.0.0 (see > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/archive/refs/tags/version.2.0.tar.gz > > > > > ) > > > > > >and removed in version 2.1.1 (see > > > > > >https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/archive/refs/tags/v2.1.1.tar.gz) > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > >So, all intermediatory versions (version 2.0.0 included) might be > > > > > >vulnerables (I haven't investigated more than just the presence of > > > > > >absence of this line though). > > > > > > > > > > > >I think it's worth updating CVE-2019-12214 with this information. > > > > > > > > > > > >Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >Cyrille Bollu > > > > > > > > > > Le samedi 13 avril 2024 à 09:56 +0200, Cyrille a écrit : > > > > > > I don’t know anything about your procedures, but I don’t see why we > > > > > > wouldn’t… > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also contact NIST (or whoever is in charge of the CVE > > > > > > database; I can’t remember by heart who it is) to let them know > > > > > > this, > > > > > > so they update the CVE’s vulnerable configurations. I’ll try to do > > > > > > that next week, but I will probably first have to find out which > > > > > > exact versions of openjpeg2 have been affected (which will probably > > > > > > be quite difficult for me) > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice week-end > > > > > > > > > > > > Cyrille > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 13 avr. 2024 à 00:22, Ola Lundqvist <o...@inguza.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cyrille > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 16:32, Cyrille Bollu <cyri...@bollu.be> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ola, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, IIUC: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. CVE-2019-12214 shouldn't be assigned to freeimage in Debian > > > > > > > > Buster; > > > > > > > > 2. CVE-2019-12214 might be assigned to source package openjpeg2 > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > openjpeg (the later doesn't seem to be available in Buster > > > > > > > > though) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, potentially so. At least if I understand the email from > > > > > > > Santiago correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > freeimage build depends on libopenjp2-7-dev which is built from > > > > > > > openjpeg2 so in buster it is openjpeg2 where it should belong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I do not know whether we typically re-assign things like this > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > not so I do not want to give advice for this. Better if someone > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > who knows the practice answers this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > // Ola > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- > > > > > > > > o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | > > > > > > > > http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- > > > > | o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | > > > > | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -- > > --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- > > | o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | > > | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- > | o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | > | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > --------------------------------------------------------------- >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
