Debian: DSA-4649-1: haproxy security update

    Date 02 Apr 2020
    234
    Posted By LinuxSecurity Advisories
    Felix Wilhelm of Google Project Zero discovered that HAProxy, a TCP/HTTP reverse proxy, did not properly handle HTTP/2 headers. This would allow an attacker to write arbitrary bytes around a certain location on the heap, resulting in denial-of-service or potential arbitrary code
    
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Debian Security Advisory DSA-4649-1                   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    https://www.debian.org/security/                       Sebastien Delafond
    April 02, 2020                        https://www.debian.org/security/faq
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Package        : haproxy
    CVE ID         : CVE-2020-11100
    
    Felix Wilhelm of Google Project Zero discovered that HAProxy, a TCP/HTTP
    reverse proxy, did not properly handle HTTP/2 headers. This would allow
    an attacker to write arbitrary bytes around a certain location on the
    heap, resulting in denial-of-service or potential arbitrary code
    execution.
    
    For the stable distribution (buster), this problem has been fixed in
    version 1.8.19-1+deb10u2.
    
    We recommend that you upgrade your haproxy packages.
    
    For the detailed security status of haproxy please refer to
    its security tracker page at:
    https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/haproxy
    
    Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply
    these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
    found at: https://www.debian.org/security/
    
    Mailing list: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    

    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![ ? ]