From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 1 16:37:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3547B1065693 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:37:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Received: from smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz [IPv6:2001:718:1e03:a01::a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B757C8FC12 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:37:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Envelope-From: dan@obluda.cz Received: from kgw.obluda.cz (openvpn.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.87]) by smtp1.kolej.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB1Gb98r089702 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:37:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dan@obluda.cz) Message-ID: <4B154635.2050209@obluda.cz> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:37:09 +0100 From: Dan Lukes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd security References: <200912010120.nB11Kjm9087476@freefall.freebsd.org> <20091201111627.GC4920@borusse.borussiapark> <86skbuet3x.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86skbuet3x.fsf@ds4.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Upcoming FreeBSD Security Advisory X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:37:13 -0000 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav napsal/wrote, On 12/01/09 14:12: > As to the second: yes, 6.1 is most likely affected. Probably no. The older algorithm used in 6.1 looks like ----------------- if (trusted) { variable =3D getenv(NAME); .... ----------------- The affected algorithm looks like: ----------------- if (!trusted) { unsetenv(NAME); ... }; variable =3D getenv(NAME); ----------------- As far as I know such change has been MFCed into 6.3, 6.4, 7.x but not=20 into 6.1. So 6.1 should not be affected by this bug (but remain=20 vulnerable to problem that triggered the change of old algorithm to new).= Dan