From kragen@dnaco.net Fri Jul 31 23:09:58 1998
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kragen <kragen@dnaco.net>
To: systalk@ml.org
Subject: Re: [ST] CNN - Security gap found in e-mail programs,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980731200420.16866B-100000@symonds.dyn.ml.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980731230333.21649C-100000@picard.dnaco.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 940
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Mark Symonds wrote:
> Apparently the Unices aren't affected?

Wrong.  Netscape on Unix is affected.

>  Should I feel safe running pine?  

No, Pine has buffer-overflow holes in it too.

You should feel safe running pine if you recompile it with a
bounds-checking compiler:

The first work I know of on bounds-checking for gcc was done by Richard
W. M. Jones and Paul Kelly, and is at
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/BoundsChecking.html
Greg McGary <gkm@eng.ascend.com> did some other work.  Announcement:
http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-May/0073.html
Richard Jones and Herman ten Brugge did other work.  Announcement:
http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-May/0557.html
Greg compares different approaches in
http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1998-May/0559.html

You also might feel safe if you were running pine on Solaris under
Janus, so that the damage done by a buffer-overflow would be limited to
reading and screwing up your mail: 
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/janus/

Mr. Wagner is currently thinking about porting Janus to Linux (well, he
actually has a working port, but doesn't like it much).  The needed
modifications to the kernel would be relatively small.

Kragen (spreading the security religion)


