Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jasper-1.900.29 Heap Buffer Overflow vulnerabilities due to some programming mistake #93

Closed
twelveand0 opened this Issue Nov 25, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@twelveand0
Copy link

twelveand0 commented Nov 25, 2016

Overview

I have found a Heap Buffer Overflow vulnerability in jasper-1.900.29. The vulnerability exists in code responsible for decoding the input image to a JP2 file. The vulnerability is a Heap Buffer Overflow vulnerability which can cause Out-of-Bound write due to a programming mistake (i.e. a mistake when setting the size of a memory allocation). The vulnerability can cause Denial-of-Service and may cause Remote-Code-Execution.

Analysis and Poc

The detail analysis report and PoC file can be found in the attachment. In order to avoid disclosing it before release of patch, I have encrypted the zip file. Developers can communicate with me to get the password.
report_and_poc1.zip

Decrypted Report

report1.pdf

Author

name: Bingchang, Liu @ VARAS of IIE
email: l.bingchang.bc@gmail.com
org: IIE (http://iie.ac.cn)

Note

I have also reported this to RedHat Security Team.

@mdadams

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

mdadams commented Nov 27, 2016

Thank you for your bug report. Your assessment of the problem was correct. There was a second place in the code with a similar problem. So, I fixed it as well. This second problem may have been benign, but I changed it in any case, just to be safe. See commit 4a59cfa.

@mdadams mdadams closed this Nov 27, 2016

@mdadams mdadams added the bug label Nov 27, 2016

@twelveand0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

twelveand0 commented Nov 27, 2016

@mdadams
The second place is issue #94?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.