Re: ghostscript vulnerabilities

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:29:07PM +0800, Alex Vong wrote:
> > Package        : ghostscript
> > CVE ID         : CVE-2013-5653 CVE-2016-7976 CVE-2016-7977 CVE-2016-7978 
> >                  CVE-2016-7979 CVE-2016-8602
> > Debian Bug     : 839118 839260 839841 839845 839846 840451
> >
> > Several vulnerabilities were discovered in Ghostscript, the GPL
> > PostScript/PDF interpreter, which may lead to the execution of arbitrary
> > code or information disclosure if a specially crafted Postscript file is
> > processed.

> I've checked just now. GNU Ghostscript is also affected at least by
> CVE-2016-8602. Looking at the patch in this bug report[0] and the
> source[1], one can see that the vulnerable lines are present in GNU
> Ghostscript. What should we do now?

I don't know the relationship between GNU Ghostscript and "upstream"
Ghostscript. Can anyone explain why GNU offers its own distribution?

We can try cherry-picking the upstream commits that fix each of these
bugs [0]. Hopefully they apply to our older Ghostscript version.

If the resulting package's ABI is compatible to our current package, we
can apply it with a graft on the master branch.

We should also apply these patches to the ghostscript package on
core-updates.

Do you want to try it?

Debian helpfully links to the upstream commits corresponding to each
bug:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2013-5653

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature