diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml | 26 |
2 files changed, 32 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml index a3d9461fa6..9794b5b3b7 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ <note> <title>Release Date</title> - <simpara>2015-05-21</simpara> + <simpara>2015-05-22</simpara> </note> <para> @@ -58,18 +58,24 @@ <listitem> <para> - Consistently check for failure of the <function>*printf()</> family of - functions (Noah Misch) + Improve detection of system-call failures (Noah Misch) </para> <para> - Most calls of these functions did not consider the possibility that - the functions could fail with, eg, out-of-memory conditions. The usual - result would just be missing output, but crashes or exposure of - unintended information are also possible. To protect against such - risks uniformly, create wrappers around these functions that throw an - error on failure. Also add missing error checks to a few - security-relevant calls of other system functions. + Our replacement implementation of <function>snprintf()</> failed to + check for errors reported by the underlying system library calls; + the main case that might be missed is out-of-memory situations. + In the worst case this might lead to information exposure, due to our + code assuming that a buffer had been overwritten when it hadn't been. + Also, there were a few places in which security-relevant calls of other + system library functions did not check for failure. + </para> + + <para> + It remains possible that some calls of the <function>*printf()</> + family of functions are vulnerable to information disclosure if an + out-of-memory error occurs at just the wrong time. We judge the risk + to not be large, but will continue analysis in this area. (CVE-2015-3166) </para> </listitem> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml index 82dde5e038..f6c0d13157 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ <note> <title>Release Date</title> - <simpara>2015-05-21</simpara> + <simpara>2015-05-22</simpara> </note> <para> @@ -58,18 +58,24 @@ <listitem> <para> - Consistently check for failure of the <function>*printf()</> family of - functions (Noah Misch) + Improve detection of system-call failures (Noah Misch) </para> <para> - Most calls of these functions did not consider the possibility that - the functions could fail with, eg, out-of-memory conditions. The usual - result would just be missing output, but crashes or exposure of - unintended information are also possible. To protect against such - risks uniformly, create wrappers around these functions that throw an - error on failure. Also add missing error checks to a few - security-relevant calls of other system functions. + Our replacement implementation of <function>snprintf()</> failed to + check for errors reported by the underlying system library calls; + the main case that might be missed is out-of-memory situations. + In the worst case this might lead to information exposure, due to our + code assuming that a buffer had been overwritten when it hadn't been. + Also, there were a few places in which security-relevant calls of other + system library functions did not check for failure. + </para> + + <para> + It remains possible that some calls of the <function>*printf()</> + family of functions are vulnerable to information disclosure if an + out-of-memory error occurs at just the wrong time. We judge the risk + to not be large, but will continue analysis in this area. (CVE-2015-3166) </para> </listitem> |