gsd-2010-3192
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:21
Details
Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2010-3192",
"description": "Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.",
"id": "GSD-2010-3192",
"references": [
"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2010-3192.html"
]
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-3192"
],
"details": "Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.",
"id": "GSD-2010-3192",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:21:34.620563Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2010-3192",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "n/a",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "n/a"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "n/a"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "n/a"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5"
},
{
"name": "20100427 Fun with FORTIFY_SOURCE",
"refsource": "FULLDISC",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100831 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100831 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100825 CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:gnu:glibc:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "2.26",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2010-3192"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-200"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100831 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100831 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100825 CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8"
},
{
"name": "20100427 Fun with FORTIFY_SOURCE",
"refsource": "FULLDISC",
"tags": [
"Mailing List",
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399"
},
{
"name": "[oss-security] 20100902 Re: CVE id request: libc fortify source information disclosure",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Mailing List"
],
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"cvssV2": {
"accessComplexity": "LOW",
"accessVector": "NETWORK",
"authentication": "NONE",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.0,
"confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N",
"version": "2.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
"impactScore": 2.9,
"obtainAllPrivilege": false,
"obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
"obtainUserPrivilege": false,
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"userInteractionRequired": false
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2020-03-31T15:32Z",
"publishedDate": "2010-10-14T05:58Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…