Monday, June 6, 2016

Bugtraq: [SECURITY] [DSA 3596-1] spice security update

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA512

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

Debian Security Advisory DSA-3596-1 security (at) debian (dot) org [email concealed]

http://ift.tt/1kZ5swi Salvatore Bonaccorso

June 06, 2016 http://ift.tt/1S3Txy1

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

Package : spice

CVE ID : CVE-2016-0749 CVE-2016-2150

Several vulnerabilities were discovered in spice, a SPICE protocol

client and server library. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures

project identifies the following problems:

CVE-2016-0749

Jing Zhao of Red Hat discovered a memory allocation flaw, leading to

a heap-based buffer overflow in spice's smartcard interaction. A

user connecting to a guest VM via spice can take advantage of this

flaw to cause a denial-of-service (QEMU process crash), or

potentially to execute arbitrary code on the host with the

privileges of the hosting QEMU process.

CVE-2016-2150

Frediano Ziglio of Red Hat discovered that a malicious guest inside

a virtual machine can take control of the corresponding QEMU process

in the host using crafted primary surface parameters.

For the stable distribution (jessie), these problems have been fixed in

version 0.12.5-1+deb8u3.

We recommend that you upgrade your spice packages.

Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply

these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be

found at: http://ift.tt/1kZ5swi

Mailing list: debian-security-announce (at) lists.debian (dot) org [email concealed]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXVazAAAoJEAVMuPMTQ89EXhQP/j8fDDATs3C0bWl8vNBJKO59

xACBiyk08wJri6WrZIMa9u0DdWKj/sluMOkNz8OOiMAQAtCKsb0invr4eC0I2y9i

pXbS+llGUPR3SouFMsqAUSL0M8bc1i1+zRDhZKgd128uB5C1xsSnYR8JtTmhTYEA

saNuTkJwdLAum39DD7DfbsA4UA0Zx2GKktK8dIy5E9iUs5mX1ELyaThfDffWgoyy

yco5hjsfOhw0My+csvZU9QeMunmT6VWBhacn7Un2/vkoo95u51OwFO1329mgC1/Q

JtKON65Gay/lYU6S1GrJqcYkaKo1GDSSgYM46b532MWqEGPwFwjdQ4q+Efalcur9

krBAMVb7xwkDkM0DMNKikcCVP+OfDBJprwd++2qGsOP6V61thpGGOSiz8geIbzGR

ySaSva+NQR5QTyBmzFWd1p1cYbwLPPcY+DwP7c+2PW8wjJMqIZbuh6Gsb/mhsde+

ZqX1wLl+g3kAKkLu5WQgK4bgi6VFe0eoGfllve59ZTNHK6ZRrbya8eAZcl7Gz4wo

Y0M0XUYgDSK6M1al7i5bd7akvFB9Q4/HBS9auI+e7LbsQmfEtJZLvc4C2ZfHQiZQ

WmfNEbuBfK+rbAR9obu3dPQiKP8TuxVtLNFa0tg6EtUrO8H8vvd4Jh7z5LFZAfbK

r+h/JdKBIo9ZEwF/nGVU

=WUfj

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ reply ]


from SecurityFocus Vulnerabilities http://ift.tt/1VIxAZv

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.