Re: ghostscript vulnerabilities

[email protected] (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> Hello Didier and all,
>
> We are wondering about the applicability to GNU=C2=A0Ghostscript of the
> recent vulnerabilities discovered in AGPL=C2=A0Ghostscript:
>
> Alex Vong <[email protected]> skribis:
>
>> Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
>>> Debian Security Advisory DSA-3691-1                   [email protected]=
rg
>>> https://www.debian.org/security/                     Salvatore Bonaccor=
so
>>> October 12, 2016                      https://www.debian.org/security/f=
aq
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
>>>
>>> Package        : ghostscript
>>> CVE ID         : CVE-2013-5653 CVE-2016-7976 CVE-2016-7977 CVE-2016-797=
8=20
>>>                  CVE-2016-7979 CVE-2016-8602
>>> Debian Bug     : 839118 839260 839841 839845 839846 840451
>>>
>>> Several vulnerabilities were discovered in Ghostscript, the GPL
>>> PostScript/PDF interpreter, which may lead to the execution of arbitrary
>>> code or information disclosure if a specially crafted Postscript file is
>>> processed.
>
> [...]
>
>> I've checked just now. GNU Ghostscript is also affected at least by
>> CVE-2016-8602. Looking at the patch in this bug report[0] and the
>> source[1], one can see that the vulnerable lines are present in GNU
>> Ghostscript. What should we do now?
>>
>> [0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D840451
>> [1]: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/ghostscript.git/tree/psi/zht2.c
>
> WDYT?  Perhaps a new release incorporating the fixes is in order?

FYI, I ported the upstream patches to GNU ghostscript for GNU Guix.
You can find them here:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=3D1de17a648fa631f0074d=
315bfff0716220ce4880

      Mark