ssamba321 s321
2010-Sep-29 10:21 UTC
[Samba] Regarding the code Change for CVE-2010-3069 ( Buffer Overrun Vulnerability )
Hi All, We are trying to fix the CVE-2010-3069 ( Buffer Overrun Vulnerability ) in the Samba 3.0.28a Source code. According to Samba-3.3.13-CVE-2010-3069 patch, we have changed the code of Samba 3.0.28a.We are unable to modify samba-3.0.28a(source/smbd/nttrance.c ) code due to following reason. In the Samba-3.3-13 /source/smbd/nttrance.c we are using "req" that of "struct smb_request" type as a parameter in the call_nt_transact_ioctl , call_nt_transact_get_user_quota and call_nt_transact_set_user_quota functions.But there is no "req" in the 3.0.28a code.We are facing the problem where we have to change the code of Samba 3.0.28.a. Any suggestions please help us...
Volker Lendecke
2010-Sep-29 11:36 UTC
[Samba] Regarding the code Change for CVE-2010-3069 ( Buffer Overrun Vulnerability )
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:51:01PM +0530, ssamba321 s321 wrote:> We are trying to fix the CVE-2010-3069 ( Buffer Overrun Vulnerability ) in > the Samba 3.0.28a Source code. > According to Samba-3.3.13-CVE-2010-3069 patch, we have changed the code > of Samba 3.0.28a.We are unable to modify > samba-3.0.28a(source/smbd/nttrance.c ) code due to following reason. > > In the Samba-3.3-13 /source/smbd/nttrance.c we are using "req" that of > "struct smb_request" type as a parameter in the call_nt_transact_ioctl , > call_nt_transact_get_user_quota and call_nt_transact_set_user_quota > functions.But there is no "req" in the 3.0.28a code.We are facing the > problem where we have to change the code of Samba 3.0.28.a. > > > Any suggestions please help us...Sorry, but the Samba Team has discontinued support for 3.0 more than a year ago. However, quite a few distributors like RedHat and probably debian have backported the security to their shipped versions of Samba 3.0. ftp://updates.redhat.com/enterprise/4AS/en/os/SRPMS/samba-3.0.33-0.19.el4_8.3.src.rpm is the current RedHat RPM. Contained in that RPM is a file called samba-3.0.37-CVE-2010-3069.patch, which might be a bit closer to what you need. Volker