Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security

From: scott () LOC3 TANDEM COM (mueller_scott)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:23:12 PDT


Perry writes:

This bug may make it possible to execute arbitrary code on any
Netscape browser on the net.


Ray Clark writes:

As you can see, I just chose an extremely long domain name. I guessed
that the authors of netscape probably thought something like "well,
a buffer size of 256 characters is good enough to hold any domain"


Not that it entirely excuses Netscape, but RFC 1034 ("DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS
AND FACILITIES") section 3.1 states:

To simplify implementations, the total number of octets that represent a
domain name (i.e., the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is
limited to 255.

[end excerpt]

They should handle exceptions gracefully.

--
Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers     +1 408 285 5762  scott () tandem com
   Unix System/Network Administrator, Host-, Post-, News- and Web-Master

Current thread:

Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security mueller_scott (Sep 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security Howard B Owen (Sep 24)
- Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security Leonard Krylov (Sep 27)
  - Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security Marc W. Mengel (Sep 27)
  - Re: your mail Anthony J. Stuckey (Sep 27)
- Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security Diego Zamboni (Sep 28)
  - Re: livingston.. Rick Weldon (Sep 29)
- Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security Diego Zamboni (Sep 28)
- Re: Ray Cromwell: Another Netscape Bug (and possible security T. Jason Ucker (Sep 29)