ghsa-2mcr-985f-frgr
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-04-29 02:58
Modified
2022-04-29 02:58
Details
Buffer overflow in LHA allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via long pathnames in LHarc format 2 headers for a .LHZ archive, as originally demonstrated using the "x" option but also exploitable through "l" and "v", and fixed in header.c, a different issue than CVE-2004-0771.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2004-0769" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2004-08-18T04:00:00Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "Buffer overflow in LHA allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via long pathnames in LHarc format 2 headers for a .LHZ archive, as originally demonstrated using the \"x\" option but also exploitable through \"l\" and \"v\", and fixed in header.c, a different issue than CVE-2004-0771.", "id": "GHSA-2mcr-985f-frgr", "modified": "2022-04-29T02:58:20Z", "published": "2022-04-29T02:58:20Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2004-0769" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1833" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/16917" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A11047" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51285" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://lw.ftw.zamosc.pl/lha-exploit.txt" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=108745217504379\u0026w=2" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200409-13.xml" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2004-323.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2004-440.html" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [] }
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.
- 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.