[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[SECURITY] [DLA 2304-1] libpam-radius-auth security update



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian LTS Advisory DLA-2304-1              debian-lts@lists.debian.org
https://www.debian.org/lts/security/                      Utkarsh Gupta
August 01, 2020                             https://wiki.debian.org/LTS
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Package        : libpam-radius-auth
Version        : 1.3.16-5+deb9u1
CVE ID         : CVE-2015-9542
Debian Bug     : 951396


`add_password` in pam_radius_auth.c in pam_radius 1.4.0 does not
correctly check the length of the input password, and is vulnerable
to a stack-based buffer overflow during memcpy(). An attacker could
send a crafted password to an application (loading the pam_radius
library) and crash it. Arbitrary code execution might be possible,
depending on the application, C library, compiler, and other factors.

For Debian 9 stretch, this problem has been fixed in version
1.3.16-5+deb9u1.

We recommend that you upgrade your libpam-radius-auth packages.

For the detailed security status of libpam-radius-auth please refer to
its security tracker page at:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/libpam-radius-auth

Further information about Debian LTS security advisories, how to apply
these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
found at: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS


Best,
Utkarsh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=RAGK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: