ArchLinux: 202004-10: wireshark-cli: arbitrary code execution

    Date 10 Apr 2020
    243
    Posted By LinuxSecurity Advisories
    The package wireshark-cli before version 3.2.3-1 is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution.
    Arch Linux Security Advisory ASA-202004-10
    ==========================================
    
    Severity: Critical
    Date    : 2020-04-09
    CVE-ID  : CVE-2020-11647
    Package : wireshark-cli
    Type    : arbitrary code execution
    Remote  : Yes
    Link    : https://security.archlinux.org/AVG-1129
    
    Summary
    =======
    
    The package wireshark-cli before version 3.2.3-1 is vulnerable to
    arbitrary code execution.
    
    Resolution
    ==========
    
    Upgrade to 3.2.3-1.
    
    # pacman -Syu "wireshark-cli>=3.2.3-1"
    
    The problem has been fixed upstream in version 3.2.3.
    
    Workaround
    ==========
    
    None.
    
    Description
    ===========
    
    A stack overflow has been found in the fAbstractSyntaxNType function of
    the BACApp dissector of Wireshark versions prior to 3.2.3, which could
    be triggered by injecting a malformed packet onto the wire or by
    convincing someone to read a malformed packet trace file.
    
    Impact
    ======
    
    A remote attacker might be able to execute arbitrary code or crash
    wireshark via a crafted network packet or a capture file.
    
    References
    ==========
    
    https://www.wireshark.org/security/wnpa-sec-2020-07
    https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16474
    https://security.archlinux.org/CVE-2020-11647
    
    

    LinuxSecurity Poll

    Do you agree with Linus Torvalds' decision to reject the controversial patch mitigating the Snoop attack on Intel CPUs?

    No answer selected. Please try again.
    Please select either existing option or enter your own, however not both.
    Please select minimum 0 answer(s) and maximum 3 answer(s).
    /main-polls/28-do-you-agree-with-linus-torvalds-decision-to-reject-the-controversial-patch-mitigating-the-snoop-attack-on-intel-cpus?task=poll.vote&format=json
    28
    radio
    [{"id":"100","title":"Yes - this was undoubtedly the right decision.","votes":"1","type":"x","order":"1","pct":33.33,"resources":[]},{"id":"101","title":"Not sure...","votes":"2","type":"x","order":"2","pct":66.67,"resources":[]},{"id":"102","title":"No - he made a big mistake here.","votes":"0","type":"x","order":"3","pct":0,"resources":[]}] ["#ff5b00","#4ac0f2","#b80028","#eef66c","#60bb22","#b96a9a","#62c2cc"] ["rgba(255,91,0,0.7)","rgba(74,192,242,0.7)","rgba(184,0,40,0.7)","rgba(238,246,108,0.7)","rgba(96,187,34,0.7)","rgba(185,106,154,0.7)","rgba(98,194,204,0.7)"] 350
    bottom 200

    Advisories

    Please enable / Bitte aktiviere JavaScript!
    Veuillez activer / Por favor activa el Javascript![ ? ]

    We use cookies to provide and improve our services. By using our site, you consent to our Cookie Policy.