Mageia 2020-0163: firefox security update

    Date 08 Apr 2020
    281
    Posted By LinuxSecurity Advisories
    Updated firefox packages fix security vulnerabilities: When reading from areas partially or fully outside the source resource with WebGL's copyTexSubImage method, the specification requires the returned values be zero. Previously, this memory was uninitialized,
    MGASA-2020-0163 - Updated firefox packages fix security vulnerabilities
    
    Publication date: 08 Apr 2020
    URL: https://advisories.mageia.org/MGASA-2020-0163.html
    Type: security
    Affected Mageia releases: 7
    CVE: CVE-2019-XXXX
    
    Updated firefox packages fix security vulnerabilities:
    
    When reading from areas partially or fully outside the source resource
    with WebGL's copyTexSubImage method, the specification requires the
    returned values be zero. Previously, this memory was uninitialized,
    leading to potentially sensitive data disclosure (CVE-2020-6821).
    
    On 32-bit builds, an out of bounds write could have occurred when
    processing an image larger than 4 GB in GMPDecodeData. It is possible
    that with enough effort this could have been exploited to run arbitrary
    code (CVE-2020-6822).
    
    Mozilla developers Tyson Smith and Christian Holler reported memory safety
    bugs present in Firefox 74 and Firefox ESR 68.6. Some of these bugs showed
    evidence of memory corruption and we presume that with enough effort some
    of these could have been exploited to run arbitrary code (CVE-2020-6825).
    
    References:
    - https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26442
    - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2020-13/
    - https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-XXXX
    
    SRPMS:
    - 7/core/firefox-68.7.0-1.mga7
    - 7/core/firefox-l10n-68.7.0-1.mga7
    

    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":50,"resources":[]},{"id":"101","title":"Not sure...","votes":"1","type":"x","order":"2","pct":50,"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.