Dear Amateur Security Studier PAPAPAPAPAPAPA,
The context in which the term memory leak is used should clue you
in here. When used in this content, 'leaked' clearly means the
contents are exposed to userspace. It clearly does not mean memory
is allocated and then not freed. By the way, your posts are always
stupid.
J
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:38:51 -0400 3APA3A <3APA3A@SECURITY.NNOV.RU>
wrote:
Dear iDefense Labs,
--Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 6:32:03 PM, you wrote to
vulnwatch@vulnwatch.org:
iL> The vulnerability exists in the kernel ioctl() handler for
FIFOs. The
iL> I_PEEK ioctl is used to peek at a number of bytes contained in
the FIFO
iL> without actually removing them from the queue. One of the
arguments to
iL> this command, which represents the number of bytes to peek, is
a signed
iL> integer value. Since this parameter is not properly validated,
a
iL> negative value can cause large amounts of kernel memory to be
leaked.
Can you please clarify this issue? According to subject it
looks like
information leak (information disclosure) issue, while
according to
description, it looks more like memory leak (Denial of Service)
issue.
--
~/ZARAZA http://securityvulns.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
