diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.0.sgml | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.1.sgml | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/sgml/release-9.4.sgml | 33 |
5 files changed, 87 insertions, 50 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> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml index ff715efaa5..168a387d34 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.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-9.3.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml index 4c0d853543..38f3354bd8 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.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-9.4.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.4.sgml index ec5dce4486..e9d1d29aa3 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.4.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.4.sgml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ <note> <title>Release Date</title> - <simpara>2015-05-21</simpara> + <simpara>2015-05-22</simpara> </note> <para> @@ -87,22 +87,35 @@ Branch: REL9_3_STABLE [c669915fd] 2015-05-18 10:02:37 -0400 Branch: REL9_2_STABLE [01272d95a] 2015-05-18 10:02:37 -0400 Branch: REL9_1_STABLE [2cb9f2cab] 2015-05-18 10:02:38 -0400 Branch: REL9_0_STABLE [9b5e831e3] 2015-05-18 10:02:38 -0400 +Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> +Branch: master [0c071936e] 2015-05-19 18:19:38 -0400 +Branch: REL9_4_STABLE [2eb2fcd56] 2015-05-19 18:16:19 -0400 +Branch: REL9_3_STABLE [13341276e] 2015-05-19 18:16:58 -0400 +Branch: REL9_2_STABLE [221f7a949] 2015-05-19 18:17:42 -0400 +Branch: REL9_1_STABLE [0510cff6e] 2015-05-19 18:18:16 -0400 +Branch: REL9_0_STABLE [cf893530a] 2015-05-19 18:18:56 -0400 --> <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> + 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> - 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. + 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> |