From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4393858D20; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:05:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3E4393858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8FDD75; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.78.76] (unknown [10.2.78.76]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5975D3F73F; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <43912382-2d32-9fff-8dad-5c41491eb804@foss.arm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 16:05:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: RFC: Adding a SECURITY.md document to the Binutils Content-Language: en-GB To: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Nick Clifton , Binutils Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" References: <1c38b926-e003-0e21-e7f1-3d5dbec2aabf@redhat.com> <5b147005-bd28-4cf9-b9e7-479ef02cb1ad@foss.arm.com> <5d044987-39eb-a060-1b2b-9d07b1515e7d@gotplt.org> <73bc480a-a927-2773-8756-50350f76dfbf@gotplt.org> <4ed86e65-0b7f-11d4-8061-2c5d0b1e147e@foss.arm.com> <7b6b10f8-e480-8efa-fbb8-4fc4bf2cf356@gotplt.org> <0224757b-6b17-f82d-c0bf-c36042489f5e@foss.arm.com> <01e846c0-c6bf-defe-0563-1ed6309b7038@gotplt.org> <2d4c7f13-8a35-3ce5-1f90-ce849a690e66@foss.arm.com> <01b8e177-abfd-549e-768f-1995cab5c81d@gotplt.org> From: Richard Earnshaw In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3487.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,MEDICAL_SUBJECT,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 13/04/2023 16:02, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-04-13 10:50, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> No, whilst elf can be executed, objdump should never be doing that: >> it's a tool for examining a file, not running it.  You have to have a >> tool that can safely examine the contents of an elf file or you can >> never verify it for issues - opening it up in emacs to examine the >> contents is not the way to do that :) > > You can verify it for issues, in a sandbox. Maybe. But not always, it might not crash the program, but still lead to issues once taken outside of the sandbox. > >> But all that is beside the point.  The original case I gave was a >> /corrupt/ elf file that caused a buffer overrun in the objdump binary. > > ... and that's a robustness issue.  Any buffer overrun in any program > could in theory be exploited to send out files. > So what's your point? These /are/ vulnerabilities in the program and need to be considered security issues. R.