<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<dwarfbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202602-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 4475563464</fuzzer>
<datereported>2026-02-10</datereported>
<reportedby>Oliver Chang</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Use After Free and memory leak
</vulnerability>
<description> Reading a corrupted object frame section results
  in a use-after-free error and memory leak in libdwarf.
  Ossfuzz vulnerability  4475563464
  Vulnerability existed since 2026-01-12 (new
  versions of frame reading functions).
</description>
<datefixed>2026-02-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz4475563464/fuzz_set_frame_all-6159202753249280
</references>
<gitfixid>9d08910d34e88ab61d197ce4e089a869b1ab9510</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>To Be Determined</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202510-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 449018019</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_crc_32 testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  A segment name is incorrect.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz449018019/
</references>
<gitfixid>43bb5458f5600d231f1e11d31cf2b29748fd1925</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202510-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 448717186</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_debug_str testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  A segment name is incorrect.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz448717186/
</references>
<gitfixid>43bb5458f5600d231f1e11d31cf2b29748fd1925</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202510-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 448522799</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-10-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_gnu_index testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  A segment name is incorrect.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed></datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz448522799/fuzz_gnu_index-5175853874216960
</references>
<gitfixid>43bb5458f5600d231f1e11d31cf2b29748fd1925</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-024</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447805105</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-26</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_showsectgrp testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  The count of commands times commands size is too large to be real.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447805105/fuzz_showsectgrp-5078066159484928
</references>
<gitfixid>43bb5458f5600d231f1e11d31cf2b29748fd1925</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-023</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447421051</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_crc_32 testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  The count of commands times commands size is too large to be real.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447421051/fuzz_crc_32-6747299494821888
</references>
<gitfixid>f5261095a4a217cfe91d7d463cb9febf5adb9191</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-022</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447586815</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-26</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_die_cu_e testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  The count of commands times commands size is too large to be real.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447586815/fuzz_die_cu_e-6725653933391872
</references>
<gitfixid>481058cdd698baf281e49b1c3b3bfe3ccab75b86</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-021</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 	447600209</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_debug_str testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  The count of commands times commands size is too large to be real.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447600209/fuzz_debug_str-6405288967340032
</references>
<gitfixid>481058cdd698baf281e49b1c3b3bfe3ccab75b86</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-020</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447797928</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_init_b testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  The count of segments times segment size is too large to be real.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447797928 fuzz_init_b-6276293315592
</references>
<gitfixid>481058cdd698baf281e49b1c3b3bfe3ccab75b86</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-019</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447702256</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_init_binary testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Inappropriate non-ascii characters in section names.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447702256/fuzz_init_binary-4759449983320064
</references>
<gitfixid>972fbafe2c39eca740512751258ff760753fc9f3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-018</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447702256</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_init_binary testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Inappropriate non-ascii characters in section names.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447702256/fuzz_init_binary-4759449983320064
</references>
<gitfixid>972fbafe2c39eca740512751258ff760753fc9f3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-017</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447702256</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_init_binary testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Inappropriate non-ascii characters in section names.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447702256/fuzz_init_binary-4759449983320064
</references>
<gitfixid>972fbafe2c39eca740512751258ff760753fc9f3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-016</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447629673</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_globals testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Inappropriate non-ascii characters in section names.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
</description>
<datefixed></datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447629673/fuzz_die_cu_print-4591618901737472
</references>
<gitfixid>972fbafe2c39eca740512751258ff760753fc9f3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-015</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447580449</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_globals testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Inappropriate non-ascii characters in section names.
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
</description>
<datefixed></datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447580449/fuzz_debuglink-469140951407001
</references>
<gitfixid>972fbafe2c39eca740512751258ff760753fc9f3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-014</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447580450</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_globals testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Reading 64bit section details (section name)
  did not complete in
  a reasonable time. Corrupted 64bit section data
  caused the slowness.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447580450/fuzz_globals-4845056734593024
</references>
<gitfixid>5a73dc27a73678b59d6b3a1d3fef07d48cd24597</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-013</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447396726</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_xuindex testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Reading 64bit section details did not complete in
  a reasonable time. Corrupted section data
  caused the slowness.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447396726/fuzz_xuindex-4824455521304576
</references>
<gitfixid>5a73dc27a73678b59d6b3a1d3fef07d48cd24597</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-012</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447421051</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_str_offsets testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Reading 64bit section details did not complete in
  a reasonable time. Corrupted section data
  caused the slowness.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/447421051/fuzz_str_offsets-4859796391264256
</references>
<gitfixid>5a73dc27a73678b59d6b3a1d3fef07d48cd24597</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447445674</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time reading fuzz_str_offsets testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Reading 64bit section details did not complete in
  a reasonable time. Corrupted section data
  caused the slowness.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447445674/fuzz_str_offsets-4859796391264256
</references>
<gitfixid>5a73dc27a73678b59d6b3a1d3fef07d48cd24597</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 447457197</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-25</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time running fuzz_tie test case.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object.
  Reading 64bit section details did not complete in
  a reasonable time.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018,
  though only exposed as of a couple of weeks ago..
  We now check more thoroughly and return error quickly
  so there is no slowdown.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz447457197/fuzz_tie-4785079261134848
</references>
<gitfixid>5a73dc27a73678b59d6b3a1d3fef07d48cd24597</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446726228</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-23</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_debuglink  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Vulnerability involving slow access to
  a corrupted Mach-o object. Where 'command-size' times
  'command-count' exceeds the size of the object file.
  The fix for DW202509-002 oss fuzz 446726229
  also added these checks for error.
  Been a vulnerability since Mach-o support added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446726228/fuzz_debuglink-4854619680604160
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446831123</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-23</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_rng  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted MacOS objectfile containing
  segments with unknown strings as the
  segment name exceeded reasonable bounds on run time.
  Segment names are defined by the compiler
  and we now check for valid segment names.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
  (Segment names are defined by the ABI and compiler-writers).
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446831123/fuzz_rng-6527551318327296
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446735540</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-23</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_dnames  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted MacOS objectfile containing
  unreasonable header fields for the size and count
  of segments lead to excessive time trying to
  read the file.  We now more thoroughly check
  the fields.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446735540/fuzz_dnames-5931269398790144
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446856589</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-23</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_tie  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted MacOS objectfile containing
  segments with unknown strings as the
  segment name exceeded reasonable bounds on run time.
  Segment names are defined by the compiler
  and we now check for valid segment names.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
  We now check that segment names are valid.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446856589/fuzz_tie-5831785406857216
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446746574</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-23</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_aranges  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted MacOS objectfile containing
  segments with unknown strings as the
  segment name exceeded reasonable bounds on run time.
  Segment names are defined by the compiler
  and we now check for valid segment names.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
  We now check that section names are plain ASCII.
  (Such are defined by the ABI and compiler-writers.)
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446746574/fuzz_aranges-4698786724380672
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446781574</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-22</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_gdbindex  testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Reading a corrupted object takes excessive
  time due to the failure to notice the corruption.
  Segment size and segment counts (multiplied)
  gave value larger than file size.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446781574/fuzz_gdbindex-4712655307997184
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446729093</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-22</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_init_binary testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> Reading a corrupted object takes excessive
  time due to the failure to notice the corruption.
  Segment size and segment counts (multiplied)
  gave value larger than file size.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446729093/fuzz_init_binary-5396366991097856
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446726229</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-22</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive time in fuzz_globals testcase.
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted MacOS objectfile containing
  segments with unknown strings as the
  segment name exceeded reasonable bounds on run time.
  Segment names are defined by the compiler
  and we now check for valid segment names.
  This vulnerability has been present since Mach-o
  object support was added in 2018.
  We now check that section names are plain ASCII.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446726229/fuzz_globals-5387186766938112
</references>
<gitfixid>9c638a21357279b9e4b1ee0c4ff7a128c3f1632e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202509-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 446356422</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-09-19</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow loading Mach-o section data
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupt (fuzzed) Apple Mach-o object file resulted
  in an overflow in copying object data to internal structures.
  Possibly leading to crash and denial of service.
  The bug was present in the code for 2 days.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-09-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz446356422/fuzz_crc_32-4931308642172928
</references>
<gitfixid>651ceb7069b311911152a87efcf7c2fc44925f67</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202508-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 437060549</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-08-07</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow in dwarf_globals.c
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupt (fuzzed) object file resulted
  in an overflow and an incorrect check and incorrect
  access to memory.
  The error check is now valid.
  The bug has been present since at least 2006 (release
  dwarf-20060308).
  Look for MIN_CU_HDR_SIZE in dwarf_global.c .
</description>
<datefixed>2025-08-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz437060549/fuzz_globals-4771320878661632
</references>
<gitfixid>efa242489a69b13bc6eedc6766880335ac42d158</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-2.2.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202502-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 394644267</fuzzer>
<datereported>2025-02-05</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow in dwarf_macro5.c
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupt (fuzzed) .debug_macro resulted in
  a failed attempt to catch an error as a small
  add overflowed bypassing the error-check.
  The error check is now corrected and completed.
  This has been a vulnerability since dwarf5 macro support
  was added in 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2025-01-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz394644267/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5504709091983360 fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5504709091983360
</references>
<gitfixid>156156a80affdc63b851fbf7fdc01e4d41849eb0</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz  (no id)</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-12-13</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Fails to stop inconsistent time. DoS.
</vulnerability>
<description> A 20K list of attributes to one DIE in
  a fuzzed object file (the vast majority duplicates)
  resulted in a caller continuing to operate (with
  many messages) for a long and inconsistent time.
  Now, by default, libdwarf checks for duplicated
  Attributes and returns DW_DLV_ERROR as soon as
  one is noticed.
  This has been a vulnerability since libdwarf was
  written in the early 1990s.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW202412-011/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-5424995441901568
</references>
<gitfixid>2161332885c50074f15c0e1a7339c330cbf88c62</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz 385742125</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-12-21</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> NULL-dereference READ
</vulnerability>
<description> A mistake made in 2021 resulted in adding
  to an end-section pointer (in .debug_abbrev),
  and it was an error to do that.
  The mistake is in code rarely executed.
  The fuzzed test object caused the bogus add
  and -fsanitize noticed.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz385742125/fuzz_die_cu_print-5500979604160512
</references>
<gitfixid>375d102768ee1ff953f97a93345318db3f63ea3c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz  (no id)</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-12-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Runs too long, to many error msgs.
</vulnerability>
<description> A very badly damaged MachO object
  runs a long time emitting error messages.
  Essentially the count of segments and the
  size of the block of segment data are both
  larger than is usable in MacOS (either one larger
  means corrupt).
  It's not an infinite process, but it is improperly long
  with too many messages.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW202412-009/fuzz_init_path-5854698061496320
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz id: 42536144</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-12-21</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null-dereference READ
</vulnerability>
<description> A very badly damaged object
  with .debug_cu[ or tu]_index results in
  attempting to eccess .debug_cu_index
  in memory -- which has not been loaded due to
  damage.  So we assumed it was loaded
  and used a null pointer value to read the index
  contents resulting in a crash.
  Now we  load the section and immediately
  fail due to the corruption and we generate an error.
  This has been a bug since the code was written
  in 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz385466100/fuzz_die_cu_offset-6604029974609920
</references>
<gitfixid>4e6e7cafa6bef0629e5ea2bbf63a4e2f84c5a938</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss fuzz id: 42536144</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-12-05</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out Of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> A certain corrupted location expression
  (in  a fuzzed object file)
  resulted in an effectively infinite loop (by
  failing to notice a value read was improper) reading
  expressions and allocating memory.
  Now we check to ensure we do not loop forever and we return
  an error. This has been unchecked for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-11</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz42536144/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-5906068650655744
</references>
<gitfixid>a0d983611468e3882c9fee92197d321ae4580c1a</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>honggfuzz id: 383170474</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-11-27</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap Buffer Overflow READ 1
</vulnerability>
<description> In dwarf_dnames_header()
  (libdwarf/dwarf_debugnames.c)
  an accidental += resulted in changing
  a local pointer not meant to be changed.
  So tests for appropriate pointers worked
  incorrectly. Changing that += to plain +
  restored the true intention of the code.
  Also, a computation of end_section (pointer)
  was incorrect in one place.
  The first error was introduced this month (December
  2024), it was not in the v0.11.1 release December 1
  2024.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-10</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz383170474/fuzz_globals-4515360770228224.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>43be4567488c8b531d1ae98fe128f5eda374098e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>id: ossfuzz id: 380108595</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-11-20</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted PE object results
  in allocating a ridiculous amount of memory.
  From dwarf_load_section in a PE object file.
  Exactly the same failure as
  DW202412-001 ossfuzz id:71721677.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-10</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz380108595/fuzz_aranges-5572243180027904
</references>
<gitfixid>43be4567488c8b531d1ae98fe128f5eda374098e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>id: ossfuzz id: 379159140</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-11-14</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted PE object results
  in allocating a ridiculous amount of memory.
  From dwarf_load_section in a PE object file.
  Exactly the same failure as
  DW202412-001 ossfuzz id:71721677.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-11</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz379159140/fuzz_die_cu_print-5335984847257600
</references>
<gitfixid>e9340b7fb01f9ee479a1a26cc10895d4eb305cc6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>id: ossfuzz id: 372754161</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-10-13</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted PE object results
  in allocating a ridiculous amount of memory.
  From dwarf_load_section in a PE object file.
  Exactly the same failure as
  DW202412-001 ossfuzz id:71721677.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-11</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz372754161/fuzz_globals-6058837938864128
</references>
<gitfixid>e9340b7fb01f9ee479a1a26cc10895d4eb305cc6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>id: ossfuzz id: 371659894</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-10-6</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Timeout - infinite loop
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object results
  in an infinite loop.
  libdwarf is unable to record error DW_DLE_DIE_BAD (112),
  libdwarf is unable to record error DW_DLE_ATTR_NULL (111),
  libdwarf is unable to record error DW_DLE_ATTR_NULL (111),
  libdwarf is unable to record error DW_DLE_ATTR_NULL (111),
  libdwarf is unable to record error DW_DLE_STRING_FORM_IMPROPER(327).
  The test code fuzz/fuzz_die_cu_attrs.c  fails to test library
  return codes in a loop and runs an unreasonably long time.
  It's not an infinite loop, but memory is accumulating
  pretty fast.
  Resulting in megabytes of useless error messages from libdwarf.
  I have changed the test source to check for a null 'attr'
  and stop the loop right away. With a short message.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-12</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz371659894/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-6661686947282944
</references>
<gitfixid>e69eb5da569ce8d3a76ac1aa2f1ae9d371729dbf</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202412-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>id: ossfuzz id:71721677</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-10-11</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  out-of-memory (malloc 1.7GB)
</vulnerability>
<description> Too large a malloc due to reading a
  fuzzed object without fully checking PE section
  sizes for being sensible. Has been a bug since
  the PE reading code was originally written.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-11</datefixed>
<references>regressiontests/ossfuzz371721677/fuzz_die_cu_e_print-4913953320271872
</references>
<gitfixid>e9340b7fb01f9ee479a1a26cc10895d4eb305cc6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202409-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 42538203</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-09-11</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Crash or invalid data reading fuzzed object
</vulnerability>
<description> Reading from address zero due to a lack of
  checking data for sanity as read from a fuzzed object.
  This bug in  dwarf_get_xu_section_offset()
  has been present since the code was created in 2021.
  The original ossfuzz id for this was 71412.
  There was no proper check for a usable dw_column_index as
  well as other fields from the .debug_tu_index and
  .debug_cu_index sections.
  Could result in a crash (segv) or possibly just invalid data
  being returned, depending on the contents and layout of memory.
  No report of this issue arrived at libdwarf HQ until December 3,
  2024.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-05</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz42538203/fuzz_findfuncbypc-5117956621664256
</references>
<gitfixid>9f11f8351c85f7715144943f72cd72f011616fe8</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.12.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-012</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70763</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> InfiniteRecursion reading CUs leads to crash
</vulnerability>
<description> The code added in git fix id
  6b40a0ed378826273080a7b11e7274c2b61d018b
  two days ago involved adding code setting up
  compilation unit data and in find_cu_die_base_fields()
  we called dwarf_global_formref() whereas we must
  call _dwarf_internal_global_formref_b() to avoid
  an infinite recursion.
  A crash was only possible when reading corrupt DWARF.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70763/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5161075908083712
</references>
<gitfixid>1b79d618bf5aab2bda9be495c531b13e94ae056a</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70753</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> InfiniteRecursion reading CUs leads to crash
</vulnerability>
<description> The code added in git fix id
  6b40a0ed378826273080a7b11e7274c2b61d018b
  two days ago involved adding code setting up
  compilation unit data and in find_cu_die_base_fields()
  we called dwarf_global_formref() whereas we must
  call _dwarf_internal_global_formref_b() to avoid
  an infinite recursion.
  A crash was only possible when reading corrupt DWARF.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70753/fuzz_die_cu_offset-6598270743281664
</references>
<gitfixid>1b79d618bf5aab2bda9be495c531b13e94ae056a</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70721</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-27</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap Use After Free
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was referencing freed space
  attempting to free up a compilation-unit DIE
  in the process of creating a context for a
  compilation-unit DIE, given a particular
  corruption of the DWARF data being read.
  This bug has been present for several years.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70721/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-4907954017468416
</references>
<gitfixid>6fa96f95e043bac9b98ca6f7a9a542dae8f46cd</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70287</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70287/
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70282</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70282/
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70278</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70278/
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70277</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70277/
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70266</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70266/fuzz_findfuncbypc-6093996460408832
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70263</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70263/fuzz_die_cu-4960441042796544
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70256</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70256/fuzz_rng-483822291655065
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70246</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-09</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Huge malloc request could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was not checking a field in
  a .debug_rnglists header for sanity before doing
  a malloc based on the field value.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70246/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5128935898152960
</references>
<gitfixid>d7c4efdcc7952b38a237a36ccedf364018e0fb1c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202407-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 70244</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-07-09</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory leaks reading rnglists
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf was failing to free()
  some allocations in reading .debug_rnglists.
  This bug has been present for a week or so.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-07-09</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz70244/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-4958134427254784
</references>
<gitfixid>906a4428a5d92e17948da4249cfccbe8f5ae8005</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.11.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202406-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 69641</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-06-14</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak reading .debug_loclists
</vulnerability>
<description> During startup (reading
  initial fields from .debug_loclists)
  libdwarf was allocating
  an array of integers but in the normal
  case was failing to free the array.
  This bug in DWARF5 handling
  has been in the code for a week or so.
  See also DW202406-001.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-06-15</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz69641/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-6271271030030336
</references>
<gitfixid>32d832900ebe2e61ec07e82625a561415be05424</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.10.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202406-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 69639</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-06-14</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak reading .debug_loclists
</vulnerability>
<description> During startup (reading
  initial fields from .debug_loclists)
  libdwarf was allocating
  an array of integers but in the normal
  case was failing to free the array.
  This bug in DWARF5 handling
  has been in the code for a week or so.
  See also DW202406-002.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-06-15</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz69639/fuzz_die_cu_offset-6001910176350208
</references>
<gitfixid>32d832900ebe2e61ec07e82625a561415be05424</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.10.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202403-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 67490</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-03-18</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Reads past end of line table
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted line table
  header can cause libdwarf to read outside of its
  allowed areas in a .debug_line section reading
  the file names part of the header.
  The failure to check for end-of-section before reading
  past end-of-section at the very last byte in section
  (at a very few specific
  points in the line table reader code where a
  valid line table header would not require a test)
  has been present for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-02-19</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz67490/fuzz_srcfiles-5195296927711232
</references>
<gitfixid>2930f3121ee6b07da405103934c329bbeca0382f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.2.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202402-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>hongg</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-02-18</datereported>
<reportedby>ifygecko</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> crashes randomly reading fuzzed locllist
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted loclists entry
  can cause libdwarf to read outside of its
  allowed areas in dwarf_loclists.c due to lack of a
  sanity check.
  A segmentation error and libdwarf crash is likely.
  Similar code in dwarf_rnglists.c and that now
  has the additional checks.
  The bugs have been present in both since the code was created
  in June 2020.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-02-18</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/hongg2024-02-18/SIGSEGV-m.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>5cfbd87dff4fc3c3b595bb92ed886934945b372c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.2.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202402-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2024-2002</cve>
<fuzzer>hongg</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-02-16</datereported>
<reportedby>ifygecko</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> crashes randomly on fuzzed object
</vulnerability>
<description> In a multiply-corrupted DWARF object
  libdwarf may try to dealloc(free) an allocation twice.
  Results are unpredictable and various.
  This has been a possibility since we added code
  to prevent leaks when generating 'unattached'
  Dwarf_Error records (where there is no
  Dwarf_Debug available at the point of error).
  The problem was introduced in libdwarf-0.1.0
  in 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-02-17</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/hongg2024-02-16/SIGABRT-a.fuzz
            SIGABRT-b.fuzz SIGABRT-c.fuzz SIGSEGV-d.fuzz
            SIGSEGV-e.fuzz SIGSEGV-f.fuzz SIGSEGV-g.fuzz
            SIGSEGV-h.fuzz SIGSEGV-i.fuzz SIGSEGV-k.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>404e6b1b14f60c81388d50b4239f81d461b3c3ad</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.2.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202402-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 66646</fuzzer>
<datereported>2024-02-12</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Reference memory outside of section.
</vulnerability>
<description> The data pointer for DW_FORM_ref1
  was not being validated as pointing into the section before
  being dereferenced.  Here reading a corrupted
  DWARF section.  A library crash is likely.
  This test failure happened to be on a
  DW_AT_abstract_origin attribute,
  but the problem applies in many other situations.
  Nearly the other forms had checks.
  This check has been missing for many years.
  Similarly the requisite check was missing from
  DW_FORM_block1 for many years and that too
  was fixed so all the FORMs have checks now.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-02-13</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz66646/fuzz_findfuncbypc-5178544143532032
</references>
<gitfixid>f21e2f7687f3dca183026a1fb72ca1f0dcf8befa</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.2.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202311-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 64496</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference from dwarf_gnu_debuglink()
</vulnerability>
<description> If the Dwarf_Debug was opened  with
  dwarf_init_object_b() there is no pathname known to libdwarf
  and the library was dereferencing a null pointer as a result.
  With the library bug fixed
  the fuzz/fuzz_debuglink.c test case was violating the
  rules of use of the function resulting in memory
  leakage. The documentation has been improved on this
  function.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-11-25</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz64496/fuzz_debuglink-615437663823462
</references>
<gitfixid>d76cce559b898f7059ce5ffd82f3cfd58cb392fe</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202311-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56452</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-11-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference
</vulnerability>
<description> Passing a null Dwarf_Debug to
  dwarf_add_debuglink_global_path() lead to  library crash.
  The code was not checking for a valid Dwarf_Debug Argument.
  The bug was present when the function was created in 2021
  Moreover, oss fuzz originally noted the bug
  on 02 March 2023 but
  I can find no trace of a notification of the bug arriving
  before 24 November 2023.
  Fixing this sort of thing for all functions, here is
  the last commit id...
  ef77596af000719c04bd3e40b97139247ff3efb4
</description>
<datefixed>2023-11-25</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56452/fuzz_debuglink-cs4231a-5927365017731072
</references>
<gitfixid>1f6988307748f427566e3266695bb72d5384bf3d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202310-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 63024</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-10-06</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> A copy-paste error lead to
  a heap buffer overflow. Named the wrong struct
  in calling calloc().
  The function with the bug was added seven days ago.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-10-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz63024/fuzz_init_path-5486726493372416
</references>
<gitfixid>3a658bd1dd7437948cecbf82bb9b24f5f6122a7d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202310-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 62943</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-10-02</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The heap buffer overflow was due
  to a failure to do initial sanity checks on a
  universal object. The object involved was
  not large enough to have a complete universal
  header.
  This bug was in the public repository
  for three days (in all-new code, for Apple
  Universal Binary objects).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-10-03</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz62943/fuzz_init_path-5486726493372416
</references>
<gitfixid>aea77dad8745d9aad5275c3226e4e3156effa71f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202309-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 62842</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-09-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The heap buffer overflow in
  _dwarf_memcpy_swap_bytes was due a failure to check
  for a valid size field (a fuzzed value) in a count
  of array elements..
  Now we check for a sensible count.
  This bug was in the public repository
  for two days (in all-new code, for Apple
  Universal Binary objects).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-10-01</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz62842/fuzz_findfuncbypc-4964619766333440.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>f7c7e84e5a77915bb6570215887118d8e7759122</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202309-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 62834</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-09-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory leak in _dwarf_macho_setup()
</vulnerability>
<description> The September 29 addition of Mach-O
  universal binary support
  resulted in memory leaks due to revising memory alloc/free
  incompletely when fuzzed object files were encountered..
  This bug was in the public repository
  for two days (in all-new code, for Apple
  Universal Binary objects).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-10-01</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz62834/fuzz_init_path-4573857635500032
</references>
<gitfixid>f7c7e84e5a77915bb6570215887118d8e7759122</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202309-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 62833</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-09-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory leak in _dwarf_macho_setup()
</vulnerability>
<description> The September 29 addition of Mach-O
  universal binary support
  resulted in memory leaks due to revising memory alloc/free
  incompletely when fuzzed object files were encountered..
  This bug was in the public repository
  for two days (in all-new code, for Apple
  Universal Binary objects).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-10-01</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz62833/fuzz_set_frame_all-4521858130903040
</references>
<gitfixid>gitfixid: f7c7e84e5a77915bb6570215887118d8e7759122</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202309-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 62547</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-09-22</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap use after free
</vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_get_fde_for_die() causes the
  problem as its special handling in a user calling
  for fde destruction is wrong when dwarf_finish()
  is calling for fde destruction.
  dwarf_finish() can refer to freed memory
  in trying to delete a CIE twice.
  The use after free has a dependence on the order nodes are seen
  in the de_alloc_tree tdestroy() walk of the table
  (the order is not predictable).
  Broken in release 0.8.0 and all previous releases.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz62547/fuzz_stack_frame_access-5263709637050368
</references>
<gitfixid>cd741379bd0203a0875b413542d5f982606ae637</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.9.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202308-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59576</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Read from outside frame section
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object results in
  reading outside a frame section due to a comparison
  being &gt; when it should have bin &gt;= at about
  line 1615 in dwarf_frame2.
  Could result in crash or incorrect frame data returned.
  Somehow we lost track of this open bug.
  The bug has been in the code since the augmentation
  was first implemented in the library.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-08-26</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59576/fuzz_set_frame_all-5867083595120640
</references>
<gitfixid>e53adc90ffd6d5d0fad61546b0041990aefd970b</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202307-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 60506</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-07-09</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Read from outside section
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object results in
  reading outside a line table due to a corruption
  in a non-standard (experimental) line table format.
  A corrupted offset was not checked for sanity.
  The bug has been in the code since the experimental
  line table support was added in 2015.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-07-11</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz60506/fuzz_srcfiles-6494439909228544.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>c8c5073f35b1efdcc610ecf369c78f87fdd34714</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 60090</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Read from invalid memory address
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object results in
  an addition overflow in reading CIE data
  leading to a read from an invalid address.
  An almost-correct check for an overflow
  in case of a fuzzed aug_irix_exception_table
  augmentation leads to a crash.
  The bug was incorrect coding of a test
  (for an absurd value) written a few weeks ago.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-26</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz60090/fuzz_set_frame_all-5757752673435648
</references>
<gitfixid>6f75899f1f90fa87e52da0df09ddaa2e5be778f9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59950</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-18</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>library reads outside frame section
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object results in
  adding a too large value (from CIE
  frame augmentation data) to a pointer,
  having failed to check the value for
  reasonableness.  That add overflows
  so dereferencing the
  pointer in dwarf_frame.c could lead to a crash
  in the library or getting nonsense information
  returned to the caller.
  This bug has been present for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-19</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59950/fuzz_set_frame_all-6613067367317504
</references>
<gitfixid>b7437c9e4923906e9b3f3860a0c8a8289cff0a91</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59775</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-11</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Fuzzed object results in read past end of section.
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object results in reading one byte
  past the end of a .eh_frame section
  in internal function _dwarf_read_loc_expr-op().
  Now we check for that before we dereference a pointer
  (to read the particular single-byte field).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-13</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59775/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-4504718844755968
</references>
<gitfixid>9cae1be75ec333d2b8ab8800df4850ed77a8b025</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59699</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-08</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Read past end of section
</vulnerability>
<description> In reading a CIE prefix
  of a fuzzed object we read past the end
  of the section due to a failure
  to check a byte pointer before we dereference it
  in _dwarf_read_cie_fde_prefix().
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59699/fuzz_stack_frame_access-6523659305746432
</references>
<gitfixid>c5b909630bb566cdbf68fae4091f049f3b22ff11</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59602</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Buffer overflow read
</vulnerability>
<description> In _dwarf_read_loc_expr_op()
  we read one byte past available data
  as the required check for past-end
  was missing.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59602/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-6737086749999104
</references>
<gitfixid>c8c54ba5c79b0a2687f0fa2ac331479506c3210f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59727</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Integer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Integer Overflow in
  _dwarf_exec_frame_instr() called by
  dwarf_expand_frame_instructions.
  We now check for overflows in add and
  multiply here.
  Similar to ossfuzz 59517
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-08</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>f664f93d456284130afbd3c2e35b39e5f2740366</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59717</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Integer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Integer Overflow in
  _dwarf_exec_frame_instr() called by
  dwarf_expand_frame_instructions.
  We now check for overflows in add and
  multiply here.
  Similar to ossfuzz 59517
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-08</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>f664f93d456284130afbd3c2e35b39e5f2740366</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59595</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-09</datereported>
<reportedby>shinibufa (github)</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Signed Integer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Signed Integer Overflow.
  In _dwarf_exec_frame_instr(),
  called by dwarf_expand_frame_instructions(),
  there was a DW_CFA_LLVM_def_aspace_cfa_sf
  and we failed to check for overflow.
  The test case had a overflow.
  Now we do that check.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59595/fuzz_set_frame_all-5319697747542016
</references>
<gitfixid>e8c726e2be644df2706342b7a80633d07ecd7fb4</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>shinibufa</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-09</datereported>
<reportedby>shinibufa (github)</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> use after free
</vulnerability>
<description> Heap use-after-free dwarf_query.c
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-19</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/shinibufa/fuzzed_input_file
</references>
<gitfixid>4017ab8b92195641e6876b388cebe2d3307634f5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59519</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Integer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Integer Overflow in
  _dwarf_exec_frame_instr() called by
  dwarf_expand_frame_instructions.
  We now check for overflows in add and
  multiply here.
  Similar to ossfuzz 59517
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59519/fuzz_set_frame_all-4670829255065600
</references>
<gitfixid>f664f93d456284130afbd3c2e35b39e5f2740366</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202306-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59517</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-06-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Signed Integer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Nine different places in dwarf_frame.c
  multiplied a factored value by a (usually) small integer
  without checking if the factored value read from
  the object could possibly be real.  So the
  factored value when multiplied by the factor
  could overflow. In some of the cases the factored value
  is signed, some it is unsigned.
  This sanity checking of factored frame offset
  values never existed before in the library.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-06-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59517/fuzz_set_frame_all-5741671019839488
</references>
<gitfixid>f664f93d456284130afbd3c2e35b39e5f2740366</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59478</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-05-31</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory leak in dwarf_expand_frame_instructions()
</vulnerability>
<description> Fuzzing provoked one of four error cases that
  could leak locally allocated memory from _dwarf_exec_frame_instructor()
  (called by dwarf_expand_frame_instructions).
  The code did free(localregtab) but
  needed to do FREELOCALMALLOC, a macro specific
  to this function which cleans up all local allocations.
  All four places have been corrected.
  Called enough times with fuzzed data could result
  in filling memory leading to the library being unable
  to work for the caller and instead just returning errors.
  This bug has been present in the code for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-31</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59478/fuzz_set_frame_all-5300774457180160
</references>
<gitfixid>8ef9c8fb613e59f534e789e91a73088eaa5b8a5a</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56451</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Write to memory fails
</vulnerability>
<description> One problem is a bug in the test source:
  fuzz/fuzz_dnames.c. It calls dwarf_dnames_abbrevtable()
  incorrectly.  The caller is required to provide arrays
  dw_idxattr_array and dw_form_array and pass a pointer to such.
  The code was just passing in a pointer to nothing.
  The library code has no possible way to determine the passed
  in pointers are usable.
  In addition, dwarf_dnames_abbrevtable() did not
  check that pointers passed in were non-null before
  use, but now it does.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56451/fuzz_dnames-4986494365597696
</references>
<gitfixid>12a612fc8db38fc26cd5e6064f09a6f825891c7c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56492</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>fuzz testing</product>
<vulnerability>  Timeout (exceeds 50 seconds)
</vulnerability>
<description> The problem is a bug in the test source:
  fuzz/fuzz_macro_dwarf5.c. One must not blame the
  fuzzer author for examplep5(),
  the code was based on doc/checkexamples.c
  and there examplep() was really just a sketch.
  The testcase here no longer specifies an infinite loop.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56492/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-6497277180248064
</references>
<gitfixid>97a78122268c9a74701f2dd3115f902309e9a484</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56474</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null pointer dereference.
</vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_highpc_b() lead to crash.
  The function was dereferencing an argument before
  the argument was checked. Now it is checked
  for null before any dereference.
  In addition, the test code, fuzz/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist.c,
  called dwarf_highpc_b() with a Dwarf_Die that is
  uninitialized local variable (hence contents unpredictable).
  C code has no way to catch such a caller error.
  This is a bug in the test code.
  We are changed the test code local data pointer variable
  to be initialized with the value 0.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56474/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-4719938125561856
</references>
<gitfixid>b3df2530732ea515cda5a85438871e15c6723ead</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56472</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-27</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Crash on null pointer argument.
</vulnerability>
<description> A call to any dwarf_get_fission
  or any API entry with _xu_ in the name
  (functions for DWARF5 Debug Fission, called Split Dwarf
  in DWARF5) would crash the caller if any relevant argument
  was null.  The problem has existed since the code
  was written in 2021.
  Once that is fixed valgrind complains about using
  an uninitialized value.
  fuzz/fuzz_simplereader_tu.c calls libdwarf with
  the declation being Dwarf_Die die; no initializer
  present. Bad behavior, even a library crash is
  likely.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56472/fuzz_simplereader_tu-6614412934119424
</references>
<gitfixid>8b17d41a31c33e0b3b9727a8044e0093a754d6d7</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56462</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Unpredictable crash or erroneous data returned
</vulnerability>
<description> A call to dwarf_set_frame_undefined_value()
  dwarf_set_frame_rule_initial_value() dwarf_set_frame_same_value()
  dwarf_set_frame_cfa_value() dwarf_set_frame_rule_table_size()
  with unusable values was not being caught.
  Now if the set of values violates the required
  relationships an error is returned on requesting
  actual frame data.
  The problem has existed for many years (fixed May 23).
  Once that is fixed valgrind shows leaks. That is because
  fuzz/fuzz_set_frame_all.c fails to call dwarf_finish() and,
  instead, simple exit()s at several places. Updated the
  test source to return from its functions and only
  exit() from main() after the dwarf_finish() call.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56462/fuzz_set_frame_all-5424385441005568
</references>
<gitfixid>21b33d13024d18b09e32914ca5718a5c81d1ad67</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56446</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf test code</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect section bound check
</vulnerability>
<description> The test program fuzz_dnames.c passed
  a non-null pointer containing garbage content.
  The fix is to initialize (in fuzz_dnames.c)
  the local variable to null (0).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56446/fuzz_dnames-4784811358420992
</references>
<gitfixid>6fac1021c67d72da6b65f99ad815978d40b4c1e8</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 59091</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-05-19</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect section bound check
</vulnerability>
<description>  A fuzzed line table in the non-standard
  (experimental) two-level line table format
  exposed a failure as the test was v &gt; sectionend
  whereas it has to be v &gt;= sectionend as end pointers
  are always one-past the end of the area.
  This was incorrect since the experimental table support
  was added in 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-19</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz59091/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5135813562990592
</references>
<gitfixid>4017ab8b92195641e6876b388cebe2d3307634f5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 58797</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-05-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak reading experimental line table
</vulnerability>
<description>  A fuzzed line table in the non-standard
  (experimental) two-level line table format had
  several unchecked values and one was larger than
  made any sense, and detecting the error revealed
  a memory leak. Caused by the incomplete fix to
  DW202305-001 (yesterday).
  This is was a failure to run some crucial tests,
  which would have exposed the problem before
  DW202305-001 was completed. Incomplete testing.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-10</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz58797/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-4872686367801344
</references>
<gitfixid>eeb935200f78b8509e6b1837f6825b9d551b9f7d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202305-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 58769</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-05-09</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Excessive malloc reading experimental line table
</vulnerability>
<description>  A fuzzed line table in the non-standard
  (experimental) two-level line table format had
  several unchecked values and one was larger than
  made any sense.
  The failure was due to oss-fuzz limiting malloc to 3GB.
  The failure was appropriate as the fuzzed values were
  inappropriate. We now check for sensible values.
  See libdwarf/dwarf_line_table_reader_common.h
  The code was in libdwarf starting in 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-09</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz58769/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5460713058205696
</references>
<gitfixid>edc241bd0bf22c94d2d496f3cb761e60f066cd14</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202304-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 58026</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-04-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Segv on unknown address reading frame data.
</vulnerability>
<description> On reading a corrupt frame register number
  the library could crash with a segmentation violation.
  This bug has been present in the code for 25 years.
  The conversion of an impossibly large
  (carefully constructed) register number
  to a Dwarf_Half or unsigned int the result looked
  reasonable, invalidating some tests for
  reasonableness.   Now we do all the tests
  on the full Dwarf_Unsigned register number(s)
  and retain the value in the long form everywhere.
  Fixed 2023-04-15.
  Once that is fixed there is still a leak found by valgrind.
  Tht test code fuzz/fuzz_set_frame_all.c does a local
  malloc and in some cases returned without free-ing it
  locally. Now that local malloc has the necessary
  local free.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz58026/fuzz_set_frame_all-4582976972521472.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>21b33d13024d18b09e32914ca5718a5c81d1ad67</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202304-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57887</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-04-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Reading outside the intended section data.
</vulnerability>
<description>  Crash in libdwarf on reading
  .debug_addr given a bogus index entry.
  Due to failing to correctly check that the index is
  out of range.
  The index was close to overflowing Dwarf_Unsigned
  so testing values *after* arithmetic done on the
  incoming index was too late:
  so we read outside the .debug_addr table.
  The checks have been incomplete since this DWARF5 section
  code was written. libdwarf/dwarf_query.c
</description>
<datefixed>2023-04-11</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57887/fuzz_die_cu-4866423964172288
</references>
<gitfixid>1729d9af3f690bece912ae0f625b312566d0ae25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202304-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57766</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-04-07</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap Buffer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description>  Crash in libdwarf on reading an attribute
  due to failing to check that an index into .debug_str_offsets
  is sane. So we read far outside the relevant table.
  The checks have been incomplete since this DWARF5 section
  code was written.  Two functions in libdwarf
  dwarf_form.c had the same problem.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-04-09</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57766/fuzz_die_cu_print-5295062170075136
</references>
<gitfixid>761da806fc950c6b26c1763e8989a814e9b16a59</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202304-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57711</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-04-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> dereference null pointer
</vulnerability>
<description>  Crash in libdwarf on dwarf_srcfiles() call.
  A dereference off a null pointer due to corrupt
  file numbers not being noticed. Any such crash left an
  incomplete and misleading stack trace.
  The large numbers treated as Dwarf_Signed were part of the problem.
  Now in libdwarf we check Dwarf_Signed for negative values and issue
  an error if the value less than 0. So later casts to
  Dwarf_Unsigned work as intended.
  The libdwarf problems have been in the library for a very
  long time.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-04-06</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57711/fuzz_srcfiles-4695324781576192
</references>
<gitfixid>da0d1efbeddcff23c25704bd9672e98314928b19</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-059</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57562</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-30</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Infinite loop reading DIEs
</vulnerability>
<description>  Caller looping on dwarf_siblingof_b()
  (wanting to touch all siblings)
  could be put in an infinite loop.
  A DW_AT_sibling attribute with a corrupted
  attribute value meant the caller never sees
  the DW_DLV_NO_ENTRY return signalling all siblings
  have been seen.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-04-01</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57562/fuzz_findfuncbypc-6681114772373504
</references>
<gitfixid>21b076f652992c03f145f6edeb623918e17693f8</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-058</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57527</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-29</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> reading off end of valid data can crash library
</vulnerability>
<description> A line table header truncated by a fuzzer
  to just the right length (anywhere within a 12 byte area)
  would cause memory references outside of valid data.
  Now we check there is object data present
  before referring to that area and if not, return
  an error.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57527/fuzz_srcfiles-4599045397282816
</references>
<gitfixid>36e4063ade31c9ea6ea5df973d2045b36877885b</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-057</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-26</datereported>
<reportedby>Pedro Navarro</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Unable to read large object sections
</vulnerability>
<description> A section 2GB+ in size could not be
  read by libdwarf. Such is a Denial of Service.
  Simply turning the big read
  into however many are needed (each below 2GB)
  was simple to do.  The limitation in the 'read'
  libc function (really a Linux kernel
  limitation) is well documented but
  we had not noticed before now.
  Few object files are so large.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-28</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>8bf96199a0e130483cceca6bfacfbe4127441ab1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-056</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57516</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference in dwarf_hasattr()
</vulnerability>
<description> With a corrupted attribute
  dwarf_hasattr() could try to access
  an implicit_const abbrev value indexing
  off of a NULL library internal pointer.
  Because the abbrev section had no actual implicit
  const value due to the corruption, so the internal
  array for holding such was not present.
  The pointer abl_implicit_const was NULL.
  Now we test the pointer for NULL and if NULL
  report an error.
  This lack of a NULL check has existed
  for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57516/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-6171488289161216
</references>
<gitfixid>5dc3de5ce70331692a2700b218fb79e0d4d81c23</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-055</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57485</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-27</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>None, test code bug</product>
<vulnerability></vulnerability>
<description> Abort in fuzz_die_cu_attrs.c
  The fault was in test code.
  Since fixed (earlier today). No code change here.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57485/
</references>
<gitfixid>2b19bc239f3cedd1b2461e4265d90633277ce704</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-054</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57463</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>none, test code bug</product>
<vulnerability> dereference null in test code
</vulnerability>
<description> The fault was in test code.
  fuzz_die_cu_attrs.c
  Since fixed (earlier today). No code change here.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57463/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-5158380196200448
</references>
<gitfixid>e4053c9a0f25db0bed28372d9b77a50a0307dc10</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-053</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57443</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Double free in _dwarf_read_line_table_header
</vulnerability>
<description> The same bug seen earlier
  A double free when a particular error is
  in the line table header.
  Fixed already.
  gitfixid is more recent than truly required.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57443/fuzz_srcfiles-6015429578719232
</references>
<gitfixid>c25a14c3fd5522aff0b1d2a77d7ee66b7c529779</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-052</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57442</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Corrupt .debug_rngslists leads to crash
  when a rnglists header has a length indicating
  a longer section than we really have.
  Now we check more carefully for that situation.
  The bug existed from 2017, when DWARF5 support
  was added to the library.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57442/fuzz_rng-5974595378479104
</references>
<gitfixid>271b9b8367a8151fcd98723d73382ec56f05c810</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-051</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57437</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap double free
</vulnerability>
<description> In a specific error case
  reading a fuzzed object and calling
  dwarf_srcfiles local data was
  freed twice. The bug was
  fixed earlier, and involved
   src/lib/libdwarf/dwarf_line_table_reader_common.h.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57437/fuzz_srcfiles-5281689109921792
</references>
<gitfixid>c25a14c3fd5522aff0b1d2a77d7ee66b7c529779</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-050</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57429</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> invalid free() in test source
</vulnerability>
<description> The test source violates libdwarf requirements.
  fuzz/fuzz_die_cu_attrs.c was doing free on a name pointer
  returned from dwarf_diename. The documentation clearly
  states that pointer should not have a free() done.
  fix id below is fixing the test source.
</description>
<datefixed>3023-03-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57429/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-4845537731149824
</references>
<gitfixid>2b19bc239f3cedd1b2461e4265d90633277ce704</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-049</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57408</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-24</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Stack Overflow, _dwarf_create_a_new_cu_context...
</vulnerability>
<description> involves find_sig8_target_as_global_offset()
  and is the same problem as seen in other guises earlier.
  The case becomes an infinite loop, so eventually the
  stack gets exhausted. Fixed.
  See also ossfuzz id 56540.  ossfuzz id 56487.  ossfuzz id 56497.
  ossfuzz 57480
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-26</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57408/fuzz_die_cu-4702098356043776
</references>
<gitfixid>24f5697aecd77092de20f0f7e7d91fbc1f2b3da0</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-048</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Memory leak (was double free).
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --file-name=&lt;file&gt; -kG -ka &lt;objectfile&gt;
  results in a a memory leak.
  In certain error cases we failed to fclose()
  a FILE * used to read dwarfdump.conf.
  Earlier changes fixed the double free, this
  fixes the memory leak..
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/choi015/poc_file_03
</references>
<gitfixid>24f5697aecd77092de20f0f7e7d91fbc1f2b3da0</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-047</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Double Free
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --check-unique --check-abbrev
  results in a double free.
  The table of unique errors contained
  makename() data, so that aspect caused
  a double free as makename gets destructed
  independently. Fixed now,letting makename
  destructor do the work.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/choi015/poc_file_04
</references>
<gitfixid>df64db4740f1b480e602b1112107d51f0d269828</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-046</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  global buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --search-regex=t[ą--]e
  Note the non-ascii character.
  The dwarfdump regex only allows ascii
  in search patterns, not the rest of UTF-8.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-26</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/choi012/poc_file_10
</references>
<gitfixid>9eac0c8bbae3fadb2be3d5ee15b9c44f42d2f966</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-045</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap buffer overflow, regex
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --search-regex=
  with a simple, really long, string.
  (with no file named)
  resulted in a buffer overflow in a buffer
  in dd_regex.c.
  No object file is required for the test.
  The code now checks stores to the internal array
  holding the non-deterministic finite automata (nfa)
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/baselines/choi014.base
</references>
<gitfixid>bb8fab9e5e4e40b1268b31d90882c2ab93653eaf</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-044</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --search-regex=\\
  (with no file named)
  resulted in a heap use after free.
  No object file is required for the test.
  The dd_regex.c regex compiler failed
  to notice when a trailing backslash
  caused the pattern compiler to step
  past the pattern string.
  Now we notice and issue an error.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/baselines/choi013.base
</references>
<gitfixid>3269f43d2a044bfcce71d30ce214a305473d1ea3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-043</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Use After Free
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump choi012/poc_file_08
  was resulting in a heap use after free.
  It no longer does, due to earlier
  libdwarf fixes.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/choi012/poc_file_08
</references>
<gitfixid>4a8a201cdb3408a2cfdc2946418b51b884140a2c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-042</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --check-all choi012/poc_file_07
  leaked memory in dwarfdump.
  A single instance of print_error_and_continue()
  failed to return DW_DLV_ERROR when libdwarf
  reported an error.
  Before recent fixes to libdwarf this would
  also generate heap-use-after-free.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/choi012/poc_file_07
</references>
<gitfixid>4a8a201cdb3408a2cfdc2946418b51b884140a2c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-041</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> Heap Use after Free
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command:
  dwarfdump --check-frame-extended choi012/poc_file_06
  is now working, apparently fixed by earlier
  bug fixes in libdwarf.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/choi012/poc_file_06
</references>
<gitfixid>fd92b647e5e3a524be94b3b06c9efd14a8292946</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-040</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-07</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Reading from zero page
</vulnerability>
<description> The  command: dwarfdump --file-abi=
  causes big problems. Denial of service.
  For many of such commands with an '=' and nothing
  following the
  dwoptarg variable is not set at all, leading
  to a segmentation violation.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references>  regressiontests/choi011/README
</references>
<gitfixid>fd92b647e5e3a524be94b3b06c9efd14a8292946</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-039</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56480</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Reading a compilation unit never finishes
</vulnerability>
<description> Reading a DWARF compilation unit header
  in  a corrupted object
  caused an infinite loop of repeated calls (growing the stack
  at each call) in libdwarf.  Now the library properly reflects
  a NO ENTRY case avoiding the loop and the test case returns
  an unrelated error due to other corruption.
  Arguably the loop was due to corruption too, but it should
  not have gotten stuck in the loop (and now it will not
  get stuck).
  See also ossfuzz id 56540.  ossfuzz id 56487.  ossfuzz id 56497.
  ossfuzz 57408
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56480/fuzz_die_cu_print-5264022485467136
</references>
<gitfixid>1ff4365bd64a4e4f9ab717b3f62589c2ba6637a5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-038</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57335</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-22</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Null dereference in dwarf_hasform()
</vulnerability>
<description> Passing a null dw_return_bool pointer dereferenced
  zero, but now, instead we return DW_DLV_ERROR with error code
  DW_DLE_INVALID_NULL_ARGUMENT
  The test driver fuzz_die_cu_attrs.c passed in a NULL
  argument (the test was not modified except for adding
  a comment) but libdwarf now checks for a null argument.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57335/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-6235345560928256.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>e4053c9a0f25db0bed28372d9b77a50a0307dc10</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-037</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57300</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> Another case of the infinite loop
  due to _dwarf_find_CU_Context_given_sig().
  See DW202303-034 57193 and others listed here.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57300/fuzz_die_cu-4752724662288384
</references>
<gitfixid>7165918c8594061c3f5ba7dd4df7c4555c68ec78</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-036</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57300</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> Another case of the infinite loop
  due to _dwarf_find_CU_Context_given_sig().
  See DW202303-034 57193
  See DW202303-034 57149
  See DW202303-034 57193
  See DW202303-034 57292
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57300/fuzz_die_cu-4752724662288384
</references>
<gitfixid>7165918c8594061c3f5ba7dd4df7c4555c68ec78</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-035</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57292</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> Another case of the infinite loop
  due to _dwarf_find_CU_Context_given_sig().
  See DW202303-034 57193 and others listed here.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57292/fuzz_die_cu_print-5412313393135616
</references>
<gitfixid>7165918c8594061c3f5ba7dd4df7c4555c68ec78</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-034</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57193</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Infinite loop till out of memory.
</vulnerability>
<description> The infinite loop reading a fuzzed object file
  was caused by letting internal function
  _dwarf_find_CU_Context_given_sig()
  unconditionally do too much in the middle
  of setting up a CU_Context (by letting
  it start more CU_contexts().
  The implicit infinite loop has been there
  a few years, depending on the correctness
  of object files DWARF4/DWARF5 being read.
  Same bug as ossfuzz 57107, ossfuzz 57149.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57193/fuzz_die_cu_offset-5215024489824256
</references>
<gitfixid>7165918c8594061c3f5ba7dd4df7c4555c68ec78</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-033</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57149</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-15</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Stack overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Infinite loop till out of memory
  Similar to 57107 DW202303-032 but revealed
  there were more places in find_cu_die_base_fields that
  needed to call the internal  _dwarf_internal_global_formref_b()
  function.
  The bug was present since 2017, when DWARF5 support for
  new 'base' fields was created.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57149/fuzz_srcfiles-6213793811398656
</references>
<gitfixid>7165918c8594061c3f5ba7dd4df7c4555c68ec78</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-032</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57107</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-14</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Infinite loop till out of memory.
</vulnerability>
<description> The infinite loop reading a fuzzed object file
  was caused by letting internal function
  _dwarf_find_CU_Context_given_sig()
  unconditionally do too much in the middle
  of setting up a CU_Context (by letting
  it start more CU_contexts().
  The implicit infinite loop has been there
  a few years, depending on the correctness
  of object files DWARF4/DWARF5 being read.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57107/fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist-4991396240293888
</references>
<gitfixid>0c92ef5b66c5bbcacae03fbf355b12713151c098</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-031</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57048</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-14</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability></vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_next_cu_header_d() on a corrupted
  object file results in an infinite loop
  and (eventually) a crash in dwarf_xu_index.c attempting
  to resolve an 8 byte hash key.
  The bug existed from the first version of this source file.
  The same bug as DW202303-030.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57048/fuzz_findfuncbypc-4647942385696768
</references>
<gitfixid>774f98e596df9dd8f3cb92ec76243caaa4287039</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-030</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 57027</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-12</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Infinite loop reading a gnu index section.
</vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_next_cu_header_d() on a corrupted
  object file results in an infinite loop
  and (eventually) a crash in dwarf_xu_index.c attempting
  to resolve an 8 byte hash key.
  The bug existed from the first version of this source file,
  which was in 2017 as the data involved DWARF5, new in 2017.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz57027/fuzz_stack_frame_access-5123569972805632
</references>
<gitfixid>774f98e596df9dd8f3cb92ec76243caaa4287039</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-029</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56993</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-12</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Leaked Memory
</vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_get_macro_context on a particular
  fuzzed object file results in a memory leak when
  a particular error in the corrupted section is detected.
  The malloc was done by the line table reader code.
  The bug was there for many years
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56993/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5770464300761088
</references>
<gitfixid>5fde5e404a98c6727889cf14d8f93ec2138a6fa</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-028</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56958</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-12</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of memory crash.
</vulnerability>
<description> Failing to check for error conditions
  in a fuzzed object correctly lead to a giant malloc
  that could not succeed.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56958/fuzz_stack_frame_access-6097292873826304
</references>
<gitfixid>b9393bb9b6399a34f8616a272d030bdd004a5ef5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-027</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56906</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-09</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap Buffer overflow reading rnglists section.
</vulnerability>
<description>  Calling dwarf_get_rnglist_rle() on a corrupted
  object file could result in a library crash.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56906/fuzz_rng-6031783801257984.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>b9393bb9b6399a34f8616a272d030bdd004a5ef5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-026</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56897</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow reading the rnglists section
</vulnerability>
<description> dwarf_get_rnglist_offset_index_value() could fail
  on a corrupt object due to imprecise calculations of
  entry offsets. Fixed by a major update of the code
  in dwarf_rnglists.c
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56897/fuzz_rng-5105415777288192
</references>
<gitfixid>b9393bb9b6399a34f8616a272d030bdd004a5ef5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-025</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56895</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow reading compilation unit header.
</vulnerability>
<description> Calling dwarf_next_cu_header_d() on the fuzzed test
  object results in a library crash in fuzz_die_cu_attrs_loclist.c
  due to a failure to
  precisely test for a too-short Compilation Unit header.
  Now a DW_DLV_ERROR is returned.
  A very old bug.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56895/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-5080340952907776
</references>
<gitfixid>771cfcca1ef6a4a7eb9595d700fc72020d0ed72e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-024</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56807</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak in dwarf_check_lineheader_b()
</vulnerability>
<description> The fuzzed test object file resulted
  in a memory leak calling dwarf_check_lineheader_b()
  as called from fuzz_srcfiles.c
  Two error conditions in dwarf_line_table_reader_common.h
  were missing a required free().
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56807/fuzz_srcfiles-4626047380619264
</references>
<gitfixid>484f50ef8be0506be2e4b5fbad489868db5c7985</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-023</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56568</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>Test harness</product>
<vulnerability>  Test build failure
</vulnerability>
<description> The fuzz_dnames.c testcase build failed.
  A result of removing two functions from the API,
  dwarf_dnames_abbrev_by_code() and
  dwarf_dnames_abbrev_form_by_index().
  Removed 2023-02-23.
  The test source no longer uses those two functions.
  The first was slow and hard to use. The second
  was unusable and never worked. The documentation
  (libdwarf.pdf) gives alternates in the library that work.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>2eced75af9903ab778c3b237ec7be3ddc93ea6ec</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-022</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56497</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>test harness</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak
</vulnerability>
<description> The leak was due to the test driver fuzz/fuzz_rng.c
  failing to call dwarf_finish at the point of returning as a result
  of the corrupted binary returning an error condition.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56497/
</references>
<gitfixid>1ff4365bd64a4e4f9ab717b3f62589c2ba6637a5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-021</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56487</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>testing harness</product>
<vulnerability> Memory Leak
</vulnerability>
<description> The leak was due to the test driver fuzz/fuzz_rng.c
  failing to call dwarf_finish at the point of returning as a result
  of the corrupted binary returning an error condition.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56487/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_rng-6655451078197248
</references>
<gitfixid>1ff4365bd64a4e4f9ab717b3f62589c2ba6637a5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-020</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56458</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The overflow encountered when
  reading a corrupted line table header in read_a_name_table_header in
  dwarf_debugnames.c
  This is id 42521584 in the new oss fuzz numbering.
  There was insufficient checking for out of bounds values.
  However, the testing was done incorrectly so the appearance of pass
  was ...wrong. A crucial line in dwarf_dnames_header() computing
  section_end was incorrect.
  It has been wrong since 2021.
</description>
<datefixed>2024-12-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56458/fuzz_findfuncbypc-5073632331431936
</references>
<gitfixid>9f11f8351c85f7715144943f72cd72f011616fe8</gitfixid>
<tarrelease></tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-019</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56454</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Stack buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> The overflow was in dwarf_get_version_of_die()
  One return failed to free a local malloc due to the
  particular corruption in the text object DWARF.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56454/
</references>
<gitfixid>1ff4365bd64a4e4f9ab717b3f62589c2ba6637a5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-018</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56807</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Memory leak reading line table
</vulnerability>
<description> A memory leak in _dwarf_read_line_table()
  reading a particular corrupted object.
  One return failed to free a local malloc.
  An very old bug, encountered reading corrupted
  DWARF line tables.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-20</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56807fuzz_srcfiles-4626047380619264
</references>
<gitfixid>1ff4365bd64a4e4f9ab717b3f62589c2ba6637a5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-017</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56450</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Stack Buffer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> Stack buffer overflow in dwarf_dietype_offset.
  Reading a corrupted object file.
  The bug was in the test code, not libdwarf.
  Having fixed that, valgrind finds that some memory is not
  freed by dwarf_finish(). In dwarf_alloc.c  March 20
  _dwarf_free_all_of_one_debug() if the Dwarf_Debug was normal
  we failed to call _dwarf_free_static_errlist() and that
  left memory allocated from a bogus earlier call to the
  library (a situation libdwarf should handle and now does).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-30</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56450/fuzz_die_cu_attrs-4953133005799424
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-016</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56476</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Buffer Overflow in dwarf_get_rnglist_offset_value
</vulnerability>
<description> A heap buffer overflow reading
  a fuzzed object file
  A revision of dwarf_str_offsets (which was
  new in DWARF5) affected several source files
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56476/fuzz_rng-5008229349588992/
</references>
<gitfixid>0343c63bd04d387924974e6da60d8471fdf945a9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-015</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56489</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Buffer Overflow in read_single_rle_entry
</vulnerability>
<description> A heap buffer overflow reading
  a fuzzed object file
  A revision of dwarf_str_offsets (which was
  new in DWARF5) affected several source files
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56489/fuzz_srcfiles-5091530466787328
</references>
<gitfixid>0343c63bd04d387924974e6da60d8471fdf945a9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-014</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56478</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Buffer Overflow in read_single_rle_entry
</vulnerability>
<description> A heap buffer overflow reading
  a fuzzed object file
  A revision of dwarf_str_offsets (which was
  new in DWARF5) affected several source files
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56478/fuzz_rng-5030515398017024
</references>
<gitfixid>0343c63bd04d387924974e6da60d8471fdf945a9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-013</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56460</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Buffer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> A heap buffer overflow reading
  a fuzzed object file
  A revision of dwarf_str_offsets (which was
  new in DWARF5) affected several source files
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56460/fuzz_str_offsets-5376904040677376-5240324382654464
</references>
<gitfixid>0343c63bd04d387924974e6da60d8471fdf945a9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-012</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56456</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Heap Buffer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> A heap buffer overflow reading
  a fuzzed object file
  Code reading the gdbindex section was not
  fully checking for valid offsets and pointers
  Duplicate of DW202303-006
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-14</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56456/fuzz_gdbindex-5240324382654464
</references>
<gitfixid>e564c9350c104f16eb2223d7b29082e3deb5d2fb</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz id: 56453</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-02-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Null pointer dereference
</vulnerability>
<description> A null pointer dereference in
  reading a fuzzed object file.
  This is related to checks for a correct
  value from the READ_AREA_LENGTH macro.
  The missing checks have been missing a very
  long time.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56453
</references>
<gitfixid>86671059c1c240ae56433fa94993dcd28df2ae7d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-07</datereported>
<reportedby>Youngseok Choi</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability>  Stack overflow dwarfdump
</vulnerability>
<description> A wholly corrupted speically constructed
  dwarfdump.conf which is entirely inappropriate ascii
  really made a mess of one's screen.
  Now after a couple lines of garbage we
  give up on that conf file. And we print the garbage
  sanitized to avoid messing up one's screen.
  The fix also avoids buffer overflow.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-25</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/choi010/poc_file
</references>
<gitfixid>cb8dd45770f2e1f440aab60adac0256f268fc16e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56443</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt line table header
</vulnerability>
<description> With any one of a small set of corrupted data
  fields in a line table header that were not checked
  for sanity the library could try to malloc a giant space,
  which could take a long time to succeed or fail.
  After that almost anything could happen.
  Same as ossfuzz 56548.
  With  the bug in 56548 fixed, now we still have a bug,
  there is a leak from _dwarf_special_no_dbg_error_malloc()
  -fsanitize does not show the bug here, but valgrind does
</description>
<datefixed>2023-05-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56443/fuzz_crc_32-4750941179215872
</references>
<gitfixid>241fe0cb415569975c451d1f2d62fb2b2147cd72</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.8.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56530</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Denial of Service with corrupt attribute
</vulnerability>
<description> With a particular data corruption
  dwarf_attrlist() failed to return an error and
  the library would dereference a stale pointer.
  This also provoked a memory leak.
  Same bug as DW202303-001
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-02</datefixed>
<references> ossfuzz56530/fuzz_findfuncbypc-6272642689925120
</references>
<gitfixid>948352178dc791796ed574a961191844d8322493</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56735</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt debug_macro section.
</vulnerability>
<description> We were not checking .debug macro data for a
  corrupted internal macro length field. Now we check.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56735/fuzz_macro_dwarf5-6718585377783808
</references>
<gitfixid>bb99fe7ddb2bc6601bcb0ee30ced6a8cc8cb0564</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56456</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service (crash) looking for gdbindex section.
</vulnerability>
<description>  The logic was wrong in a couple places (fixed now)
  and almost nothing was checked for validity.  Now we check,
  so to libdwarf do not result in a crash of the library.
  The bugs have been there since the code was written
  in 2014.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-14</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56456/fuzz_gdbindex-5240324382654464
</references>
<gitfixid>e564c9350c104f16eb2223d7b29082e3deb5d2fb</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56676</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt frame section.
</vulnerability>
<description>  A call to dwarf_expand_frame_instructions()
  with corrupt data gets a segmentation violation.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-14</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56676/fuzz_set_frame_all-5081006119190528.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>e564c9350c104f16eb2223d7b29082e3deb5d2fb</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56666</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-04</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt gnu_index section
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted .debug_gnu_index header was not
  properly checked, and the calculation setting
  up the table in memory was not correctly set up.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56666/fuzz_gnu_index-4803574417981440
</references>
<gitfixid>64eaaa58703258cab02896e798664a1bb11a3d5c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56636</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt .debug_addr section
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted .debug_addr header was not
  properly checked, and the calculation setting
  up the table in memory was not correctly set up.
  Calling dwarf_debug_addr_by_index() could crash the calling
  application.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-03</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56636/fuzz_debug_addr_access-4801779658522624.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>a3ab3f16ab67f4d976561fe0d863e1ed8b71f3c6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56548</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Denial of service with corrupt line table header
</vulnerability>
<description> With any one of a small set of corrupted data
  fields in a line table header that were not checked
  for sanity the library could try to malloc a giant space,
  which could take a long time to succeed or fail.
  After that almost anything could happen.
  Same bug fix as 56443
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-03</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56548/fuzz_findfuncbypc-5073632331431936
</references>
<gitfixid>89d3beccd161657760585967255bbabf67e5b4c9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202303-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz id: 56465</fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-03-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Denial of Service with corrupt attribute
</vulnerability>
<description> With a particular data corruption
  dwarf_attrlist() failed to return an error and
  the library would dereference a stale pointer.
  This also provoked a memory leak.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-03-02</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz56465/fuzz_die_cu_offset-5866690199289856
</references>
<gitfixid>948352178dc791796ed574a961191844d8322493</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.7.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202301-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2023-01-24</datereported>
<reportedby>Steve Kaufmann</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Denial of Service with DW_FORM_strx3
</vulnerability>
<description> Any use of DW_FORM_strx3 or
  DW_FORM_addrx3 would get libdwarf very confused
  and incorrect return values
  and or  a library crash might result.
</description>
<datefixed>2023-01-24</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/kaufmann2/ct-bad.o
</references>
<gitfixid>97e90eb7ab98df60b8da0bdc2ac855711c4db804</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.6.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202212-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2022-12-28</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Denial of Service with fuzzed object.
</vulnerability>
<description> The fuzzed testcase has at least four major
  errors which libdwarf did not catch, leading
  to unpredictable library behavior, possibly
  including crashing the calling program.
  Things not noticed before the fix (and now resulting
  in error being reported):
  A) The object has just 2 sections,
  too few to be real.  at least 3 sections are needed
  to contain DWARF information of any kind.
  B) Section zero has non-zero contents, in violation
  of the Elf object specification.
  C) The header says section strings are in section
  zero (a violation of the Elf specification).
  D) Section 1 masquerades as .note.gnu.debug-id
  and the description size is gigantic (as is
  the section, which fits the description field
  length).
</description>
<datefixed>2023-01-09</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz54724/clusterfuzz-54724-poc
</references>
<gitfixid>45f6d778811553a835916b60845933e6dda63b7f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.6.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202208-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>unspecified</fuzzer>
<datereported>2022-08-27</datereported>
<reportedby>Han Zheng</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Double free on corrupted frame data.
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted object file
  would cause libdwarf to do a double free in
  handling an error condition in
  dwarf_expand_frame_instructions().
  (in libdwarf/dwarf_frame.c)
  That could cause a segmentation violation or other
  major error, terminating the calling application and
  resulting in Denial Of Service.
</description>
<datefixed>2022-08-27</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/hanzheng/fuzzedobject
</references>
<gitfixid>428235e3d132fb62faf7732735fdbb034d6264b4</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.5.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202207-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>ossfuzz</fuzzer>
<datereported>2022-05-01</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> buffer overflow in dwarf_form.c
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted string
  would cause libdwarf to read outside of a buffer containing
  the string (one past the end) when checking the string
  to determine if it is a full path in processing
  a .gnu.debuglink section.
  That could cause a segmentation violation or other
  major error, terminating the calling application and
  resulting in Denial Of Service.
</description>
<datefixed>2022-07-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz47150/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-6727387238236160.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>24dff940cc4c71a9c3cb5475aee231b19163a12c</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.5.0.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202206-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2022-06-15</datereported>
<reportedby>Casper Sun</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> buffer overflow in dwarf_form.c
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted .debug_info section
  would cause libdwarf to read outside of a buffer containing
  a Dwarf_Sig8 symbolic reference.
  That could cause a segmentation violation or other
  major error, terminating the calling application and
  resulting in Denial Of Service.
  This failure to check for buffer overflow has been present
  since DWARF4 when DW_FORM_ref_sig8 was added to libdwarf.
</description>
<datefixed>2022-06-15</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sleicasper2/buffer-overflow-dwarf-form
</references>
<gitfixid>7ef09e1fc9ba07653dd078edb2408631c7969162</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202205-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2022-05-26</datereported>
<reportedby>Casper Sun</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> buffer overflow in dwarf_globals.c
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully corrupted .debug_pubnames section
  would cause libdwarf to read outside of a buffer containing
  the section contents.
  That could cause a segmentation violation or other
  major error, terminating the calling application and
  resulting in Denial Of Service.
  The bug has been present for many years.
</description>
<datefixed>2022-05-29</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sleicasper/bufferoverflow
</references>
<gitfixid>8151575a6ace77d005ca5bb5d71c1bfdba3f7069</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-016</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-41240</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-20</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object.
  The PE object section header for
  section .gnu_debuglink is corrupted. A very
  large number is in the VirtualSize field.
  Attempting a malloc for the section could
  succeed or might fail, resulting in
  Denial Of Service.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=41240</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ ossfuzz41240/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5929343686148096
</references>
<gitfixid>a120c808234060c3c9b1872ab9a059aa1ac70b1d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-015</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40896</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object.
  Several Elf section sizes and section offsets are larger than
  the file size.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40896</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40896/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5337872492789760
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40896/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5337872492789760
</references>
<gitfixid>b7a119dc07c502c1334bcbf8dd04ca0e4d5f6ab6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-014</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40895</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-10</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_binary
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object.
  Some Elf section sizes are larger than the file size.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40895</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40895/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_binary-4805508242997248
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40895/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_binary-4805508242997248
</references>
<gitfixid>b7a119dc07c502c1334bcbf8dd04ca0e4d5f6ab6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-013</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40802</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-07</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null-dereference READ in dwarf_object_init_b
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object.
  The error handling code in  dwarf_object_init_b
  was not properly dealing with a NULL pointer
  Dwarf_Error *errp in the test code.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40802</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-19</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40802/ clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_binary-5538015955517440.fuzz
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40802/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_binary-5538015955517440.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>adf4dae25b39039f1821b095688c00f3010e1d37</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-012</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40801</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-07</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Timeout in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object. libdwarf detects it quickly now.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40801</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz801/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5443517279764480
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40801/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5443517279764480
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-011</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40799</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description> A corrupted object.
  Gigantic section sizes or offsets were provoking
  a large malloc.  Now these are detected and
  no malloc is attempted (an error is returned).
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40799</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40799/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5245778948390912
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40799/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5245778948390912
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-010</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40627</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Abrt in _dwarf_error_string
</vulnerability>
<description> The Elf object file has some corruption. The
  read now stops with an error.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40627</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40627/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5186858573758464
  regressiontests/ossfuzz40627/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5186858573758464
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-009</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40729</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-05</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Timeout - fuzz_init_binary
</vulnerability>
<description> The object file (macho 64 bit) has some
  header fuzzing that was not caught reading
  the object until the macho reader
  tried a gigantic malloc..
  Now the library code catches the error before malloc and
  returns an error code.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40729</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40729/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_binary-4791627277795328
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-008</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40731</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_binary
</vulnerability>
<description> The fuzzed macho64 object has corrupted
  headers. The library notices and reports an error.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40731</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40731/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_binary-5983147574034432
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-005</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40674</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap-buffer-overflow in _dwarf_elf_setup_all_section_groups
</vulnerability>
<description>  Object file has corrupt section group information.
  Results in buffer overflow.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40674#c6</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-07</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40674/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-6557751518560256
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40673</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null-dereference READ in dwarf_object_init_b
</vulnerability>
<description> The macho object has corrupted headers
  and now mentions that and stops.
  Verified as fixed by oss-fuzz 2021-11-03
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40673</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-05</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40673/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-6240961391362048.fuzz
</references>
<gitfixid>94dece3ce0f030d06da442a103bd6a5301410b25</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40671</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Direct-leak in _dwarf_get_debug
</vulnerability>
<description> The test code is calling a libdwarf-internal
  function (which is against the rules, only libdwarf
  function names beginning with dwarf_ are callable.
  When building libdwarf as an archive there is no
  means to enforce this rule)
  doc/libdwarf.mm/pdf now documents this rule.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40671</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-05</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/oss40671/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5455557297831936
  regressiontests/oss40671/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5455557297831936
</references>
<gitfixid>b40f7e291216e771185f62292dd6304b5a662926</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40669</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out-of-memory in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description>  Corrupted MachO object can crash caller.b
  Two fields in the MachO file header
  were not checked for sanity so nonsense large values
  could lead to excessive malloc and or a caller
  segmentation violation. Fixed by DW202111-001.
  Verified as fixed by oss-fuzz
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40669</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40669/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-5399726397194240
  regressiontests/clusterfuzz-testcase-fuzz_init_path-5399726397194240
</references>
<gitfixid>b40f7e291216e771185f62292dd6304b5a662926</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202111-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer>oss-fuzz-40663</fuzzer>
<datereported>2021-11-03</datereported>
<reportedby>David Korczynski</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Timeout in fuzz_init_path
</vulnerability>
<description>  Corrupted MachO object can crash caller
  Two fields in the MachO file header
  were not checked for sanity so nonsense large values
  could lead to excessive malloc and or a caller
  segmentation violation.
  Verified by oss-fuzz as fixed.
  The testcase has illegal libdwarf call
  and improper include statements.
  <pre>
<preline>  https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=40663</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2021-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/ossfuzz40663/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-fuzz_init_path-6122542432124928
</references>
<gitfixid>b40f7e291216e771185f62292dd6304b5a662926</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202010-003</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2020-28163</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2020-10-27</datereported>
<reportedby>Casper Sun</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Passing null to %s due to corrupt line table header.
</vulnerability>
<description> If a DWARF5 line table header has an invalid
  FORM for a pathname, the fi_file_name field may be null
  and printing it via %s can result in referencing memory
  at address 0, possibly generating segmentation
  violation or application crash.  Now in case of null
  we provide a fixed string of &lt;no file name&gt;
  and for the form code we print the value and &lt;unknown form&gt;
  so there are no unpredictable effects.
  <pre>
<preline>  This should be visible after redhat makes it public.</preline>
<preline>  Filed on bugzilla.redhat 23 November 2021.</preline>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026000</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2020-10-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/c-sun2/nullpointer
</references>
<gitfixid>faf99408e3f9f706fc3809dd400e831f989778d3</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202010-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2020-28162</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2020-10-27</datereported>
<reportedby>Casper Sun</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> dwarfdump crashes if the nest of C scopes is too deep
</vulnerability>
<description> An object file where the DIEs depth of
  nesting exceeds the limit of 800 levels
  due to corruption or a compiler bug
  can result in exhausting the die stack array and
  writing past its end.
  A segmentation fault is possible.
  The code at the point of error was not adjusting
  the array index properly
  so an invalid dereference could occur.
  Now the test code is correct and the array overflow
  is detected resulting in a normal error return.
  Additional places where this could occur were
  identified and the proper test added.
  <pre>
<preline>  Unable to enter in bugzilla.redhat.com</preline>
<preline>  so CVE can be completed by Fedora (as CNA)</preline>
<preline>  as dwarfdump is not part of Fedora</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2020-10-28</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/c-sun2/globaloverflow
</references>
<gitfixid>a7fa8edd640b74daf8e7a442dcec96640875b4fb</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW202010-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2020-27545</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2020-10-10</datereported>
<reportedby>Casper Sun</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A carefully corrupted line table can crash calling app
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully crafted object with an
  invalid line table could cause libdwarf
  to dereference a pointer reading a single byte outside of
  the intended .debug_line section and potentially
  outside of memory visible to the library.
  A segmentation fault is possible.
  The code testing for the error was coded incorrectly
  so an invalid dereference could occur.
  Now the test code is correct and the error
  is detected resulting in a normal error return.
  <pre>
<preline>  This should be visible after redhat makes it public.</preline>
<preline>  Filed on bugzilla.redhat 22 November 2021.</preline>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025694</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2020-10-17</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/c-sun/poc
</references>
<gitfixid>95f634808c01f1c61bbec56ed2395af997f397ea</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201907-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2019-14249</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2019-07-23</datereported>
<reportedby>unknown</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Denial of service with zero size section group
</vulnerability>
<description> dwarf_elf_load_headers.c in libdwarf before 2019-07-05 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (division by zero) via an ELF file with a zero-size section group (SHT_GROUP), as demonstrated by dwarfdump.
</description>
<datefixed>2019-07-05</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>cb7198abde46c2ae29957ad460da6886eaa606ba</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-0.4.1.tar.xz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201801-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2018-01-28</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect frame section can crash dwarfdump
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully crafted object with an
  invalid frame section set of initial-instructions
  can crash the frame-instructions decode in
  dwarfdump. In addition, a couple places in libdwarf
  are not as careful in checking frame data as
  they should be.
  A segmentation-fault/core-dump is possible.
</description>
<datefixed>2018-01-29</datefixed>
<references> sarubbo-11/testcase{1,2,3,4,5}.bin
</references>
<gitfixid>7af0ecddfafed88446969cbf8c888356ad485d99</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201712-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-12-01</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect frame section could let caller crash
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully crafted object with an
  invalid frame section
  can result in passing back data to a caller of
  dwarf_get_fde_augmentation_data()
  is erroneous and will result in the
  caller reference off the end of the frame
  section.
  A segmentation-fault/core-dump is possible.
</description>
<datefixed>2017-12-01</datefixed>
<references> sarubbo-10/1.crashes.bin
</references>
<gitfixid>329ea8e56bc9550260cae6e2e9756bfbe7e2ff6d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201711-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-11-08</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect line table section could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> An carefully crafted object with a
  invalid line table section crafted to
  end early at a particular point resulted in
  dereferencing outside the line table from
  libdwarf/dwarf_line_table_reader_common.c .
  A segmentation-fault/core-dump is possible.
</description>
<datefixed>2017-11-08</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-9/3.crashes.bin
</references>
<gitfixid>a1644f4dde7dd5990537ff7ad22a9e94b8723186</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201711-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-11-01</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect frame section could crash caller
</vulnerability>
<description> A carefully crafted object with a
  resulting invalid frame section
  with DW_CFA_advance_loc1 implying
  data off-the-end-of-section
  will dereference an invalid pointer.
  A segmentation fault and core dump is possible.
  Corrected code checks now.
</description>
<datefixed>2017-11-02</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-8/1.crashes.bin
</references>
<gitfixid>44349d7991e44dd3751794f76537cabcf65ee28d</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201709-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-09-19</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Incorrect abbrev section could crash caller.
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object with a
  resulting invalid abbrev section where
  the end of section follows an abbrev tag
  would dereference a non-existent has-child byte.
</description>
<datefixed>2017-09-26</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-3/1.crashes.bin
</references>
<gitfixid>bcc2e33908e669bacd397e3c941ffd1db3005d17</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201706-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2017-9998</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-06-28</datereported>
<reportedby>team OWL337</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Addition overflow in libdwarf leads to segmentation violation
</vulnerability>
<description> A fuzzed object with a
  resulting invalid value can overflow
  when added to a valid pointer
  (depending on how the runtime memory is laid out)
  and thereafter a dereference results in a
  segmentation violation).
 <pre> see
<preline>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465756</preline>
<preline>  for contact information of those finding the bug.</preline>
<preline>  Fabian Wolff sent email and provided</preline>
<preline>  the link to the web page.</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2017-07-06</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/wolff/POC1
</references>
<gitfixid>e91681e8841291f57386f26a90897fd1dcf92a6e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-007</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf (libelf)</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in strncmp (libelf bug)
</vulnerability>
<description>  7/7. A heap overflow in
  strncmp() is due to libelf failing to check arguments
  to elf_ strptr.
  This is not a bug in libdwarf, it is a libelf bug.
  A  pointer for being in bounds (in a few places in this
  function) and a failure in a check in dwarf_attr_list().
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
 <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output with Ubuntu 14.04:</preline>
<preline> ==180133==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>   on address 0x60d00000cff1 at pc 0x0000004476f4</preline>
<preline>   bp 0x7fff87dd7dd0 sp 0x7fff87dd7590</preline>
<preline> READ of size 8 at 0x60d00000cff1 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x4476f3 in __interceptor_strncmp (/home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/dwarfdump+0x4476f3)</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x7992ae in this_section_dwarf_relevant /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:608:13</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x781064 in _dwarf_setup /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:722:14</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x77d59c in dwarf_object_init /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:922:20</preline>
<preline> With Ubuntu 16.04 libelf dwarfdump gets:</preline>
<preline> ERROR:  dwarf_elf_init:  DW_DLE_ELF_STRPTR_ERROR (30)</preline>
<preline> a call to elf_strptr() failed trying to get a section name</preline>
 </pre>
 Fix date is irrelevant, libdwarf no longer uses libelf.
</description>
<datefixed>2017-07-06</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash7
</references>
<gitfixid>cc37d6917011733d776ae228af4e5d6abe9613c1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-006</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2017-9052</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in dwarf_formsdata
</vulnerability>
<description>  6/7. A heap overflow in
  dwarf_formsdata() is due to a failure to check
  a  pointer for being in bounds (in a few places in this
  function) and a failure in a check in dwarf_attr_list().
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
 <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output with Ubuntu 14.04:</preline>
<preline> ==180130==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>  on address 0x61100000589c at pc 0x0000006cab95</preline>
<preline>  bp 0x7fff749aab10 sp 0x7fff749aab08</preline>
<preline> READ of size 1 at 0x61100000589c thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x6cab94 in dwarf_formsdata /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_form.c:937:9</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x567daf in get_small_encoding_integer_and_name /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:1533:16</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x562f28 in get_attr_value /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:5030:24</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x555f86 in print_attribute /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:3357:13</preline>
<preline> After fixes applied dwarfdump says:</preline>
<preline> ERROR:  dwarf_attrlist:  DW_DLE_DW_DLE_ATTR_OUTSIDE_SECTION(281)</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2017-03-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash6
</references>
<gitfixid>cc37d6917011733d776ae228af4e5d6abe9613c1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-005</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2017-9053</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in _dwarf_read_loc_expr_op()
</vulnerability>
<description>  5/7. A heap overflow in
  _dwarf_read_loc_expr_op() is due to a failure to check
  a  pointer for being in bounds (in a few places in this
  function).
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
 <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output with Ubuntu 14.04:</preline>
<preline> ==180112==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>  on address 0x60800000bf72 at pc 0x00000084dd52</preline>
<preline>  bp 0x7ffc12136fd0 sp 0x7ffc12136fc8</preline>
<preline> READ of size 1 at 0x60800000bf72 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x84dd51 in _dwarf_read_loc_expr_op /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc.c:250:9</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x841f16 in _dwarf_get_locdesc_c /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc2.c:109:15</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x837d08 in dwarf_get_loclist_c /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc2.c:685:18</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x57dff2 in get_location_list /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:3812:16</preline>
<preline> After fixes applied dwarfdump says:</preline>
<preline> ERROR:  dwarf_get_loclist_c:  DW_DLE_LOCEXPR_OFF_SECTION_END</preline>
<preline> (343) Corrupt dwarf</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2017-03-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash5
</references>
<gitfixid>cc37d6917011733d776ae228af4e5d6abe9613c1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-004</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf (libelf)</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in set_up_section strlen
</vulnerability>
<description>  4/7. An apparent heap overflow that
  gives the appearance of being in libdwarf is due to
  libelf call elf_strptr() failing to fully check
  that its arguments make sense.
  This is not a bug in libdwarf, it is a libelf bug.
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
  The submission was with Ubuntu 14.04. With Ubuntu
  16.04 there is no sanitizer error report.
  As of 2023 libdwarf no longer calls or references libelf.
  <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output with Ubuntu 14.04:</preline>
<preline> ==180109==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>   on address 0x60b00000b000 at pc 0x00000048fd12</preline>
<preline>   bp 0x7fff4ad31ef0 sp 0x7fff4ad316b0</preline>
<preline> READ of size 16 at 0x60b00000b000 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x48fd11 in __interceptor_strlen (/home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/dwarfdump+0x48fd11)</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x7a84a4 in set_up_section /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:285:27</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x79aaa5 in enter_section_in_de_debug_sections_array /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:355:5</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x78170b in _dwarf_setup /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:746:19</preline>
<preline> With Ubuntu 16.04 libelf one gets:</preline>
<preline> ERROR:  dwarf_elf_init:  DW_DLE_ELF_STRPTR_ERROR (30)</preline>
<preline> a call to elf_strptr() failed trying to get a section name</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed></datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash4
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-003</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf (libelf)</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in strcmp
</vulnerability>
<description>  3/7. An apparent heap overflow that
  gives the appearance of being in libdwarf is due to
  libelf call elf_strptr() failing to fully check
  that its arguments make sense.
  This is not a bug in libdwarf, it is a libelf bug.
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
  The submission was with Ubuntu 14.04. With Ubuntu
  16.04 there is no sanitizer error report.
 A portion of sanitizer output with Ubuntu 14.04:
 <pre>
<preline>  ==180106==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>    on address 0x60f00000ef09 at pc 0x000000447300</preline>
<preline>    bp 0x7ffc667dce10 sp 0x7ffc667dc5d0</preline>
<preline>  READ of size 4 at 0x60f00000ef09 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x4472ff in __interceptor_strcmp (/home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/dwarfdump+0x4472ff)</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x79938f in this_section_dwarf_relevant /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:612:12</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x781064 in _dwarf_setup /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:722:14</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x77d59c in dwarf_object_init /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_init_finish.c:922:20</preline>
<preline>    #4 0x899d4f in dwarf_elf_init_file_ownership /</preline>
 </pre>
  With Ubuntu 16.04 libelf one gets:
  ERROR:  dwarf_elf_init:  DW_DLE_ELF_STRPTR_ERROR (30)
  a call to elf_strptr() failed trying to get a section name
  Fix date is irrelevant, libdwarf no longer uses libelf.
</description>
<datefixed></datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash3
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2017-9054</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in _dwarf_decode_s_leb128_chk()
</vulnerability>
<description>  2/7. In _dwarf_decode_s_leb128_chk()
  a byte pointer was dereferenced just before was checked
  as being in bounds.
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
 <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output:</preline>
<preline>  .debug_line: line number info for a single cu</preline>
<preline>  ==180103==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow</preline>
<preline>    on address 0x610000007ffc at pc 0x0000007b0f5b</preline>
<preline>    bp 0x7ffe06bbf510 sp 0x7ffe06bbf508</preline>
<preline>  READ of size 1 at 0x610000007ffc thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x7b0f5a in _dwarf_decode_s_leb128_chk /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_leb.c:304:9</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x7e753e in read_line_table_program /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./</preline>
<preline>       dwarf_line_table_reader_common.c:1167:17</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x7d7fe3 in _dwarf_internal_srclines /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./dwarf_line.c:690:15</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x7f9dbb in dwarf_srclines_b /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/./dwarf_line.c:944:12</preline>
<preline>    #4 0x5caaa5 in print_line_numbers_this_cu /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_lines.c:762:16</preline>
<preline>  After fix applied one gets:</preline>
<preline>  ERROR:  dwarf_srclines:  DW_DLE_LEB_IMPROPER (329)</preline>
<preline>  Runs off end of section or CU</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2017-03-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash2
</references>
<gitfixid>cc37d6917011733d776ae228af4e5d6abe9613c1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201703-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2017-9055</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2017-03-21</datereported>
<reportedby>Marcel Bohme and Van-Thuan Pham</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in dwarf_formsdata
</vulnerability>
<description>  1/7. In dwarf_formsdata() a few
  data types were not checked as being in bounds.
  The test object is intentionally corrupted (fuzzed).
 <pre>
<preline> A portion of sanitizer output:</preline>
<preline> LOCAL_SYMBOLS:</preline>
<preline> &lt; 1&gt;&lt;0x0000002f&gt;    DW_TAG_subprogram</preline>
<preline> ==180088==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on</preline>
<preline>  address 0x60800000bf72 at pc 0x0000006cab95 bp</preline>
<preline>  0x7fff31425830 sp 0x7fff31425828</preline>
<preline>  READ of size 1 at 0x60800000bf72 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x6cab94 in dwarf_formsdata /home/ubuntu/subjects/</preline>
<preline>       build-asan/libdwarf/libdwarf/dwarf_form.c:937:9</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x567daf in get_small_encoding_integer_and_name /home/</preline>
<preline>       ubuntu/subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:1533:16</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x576f38 in check_for_type_unsigned /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:4301:11</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x56ad8c in formxdata_print_value /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:4374:39</preline>
<preline>    #4 0x5643be in get_attr_value /home/ubuntu/</preline>
<preline>       subjects/build-asan/libdwarf/dwarfdump/print_die.c:5140:24</preline>
<preline>    #5 0x555f86 in print_attribute /home/ubuntu/subjects/build</preline>
<preline>  ...</preline>
<preline>  After fixes applied dwarfdump gets:</preline>
<preline>  ERROR:  dwarf_attrlist:  DW_DLE_DW_DLE_ATTR_OUTSIDE_SECTION(281)</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2017-03-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/marcel/crash1
</references>
<gitfixid>cc37d6917011733d776ae228af4e5d6abe9613c1</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-008</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-10254</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-04</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Crash libelf reading fuzzed object.
</vulnerability>
<description> This is a weakness in libelf checking.
  Testing that current libdwarf deals with it properly,
  though it was never a bug in libdwarf.
  The CVE mentions libdwarf.
  <pre>
<preline>  blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2016/11/04/elfutils-memory-allocation-failure-in-allocate_elf-common-h/</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/03/22/2</preline>
  </pre>
  Fixed in gentoo libelf by Agostino Sarubbo.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-b/00011-elfutils-memalloc-allocate_elf
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-007</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-10255</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-04</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Crash libelf reading fuzzed object.
</vulnerability>
<description> This is a weakness in libelf checking.
  Testing that current libdwarf deals with it properly,
  though it was never a bug in libdwarf.
  The CVE mentions libdwarf.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387584</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/03/22/1</preline>
<preline>  blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2016/11/04/elfutils-memory-allocation-failure-in-__libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock-elf_getdata-c/</preline>
  </pre>
  Fixed in gentoo libelf by Agostino Sarubbo.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-a/00031-elfutils-memalloc-__libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-006</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-9480</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-14</datereported>
<reportedby>Puzzor (Shi Ji)</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap buffer overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> An object with corrupt contents causes a memory reference
 out of bounds, a heap buffer overflow reference.
 <pre>
<preline> heap-buffer-overflow in dwarf_util.c:208 for val_ptr</preline>
<preline> # Version</preline>
<preline> bb9a3492ac5713bed9cf3ae58ddb7afa6e9e98f8</preline>
<preline> (in regression tests here named  heap_buf_overflow.o)</preline>
<preline> # ASAN Output</preline>
<preline> &lt;0&gt; tag: 17 DW_TAG_compile_unit  name: &quot;strstrnocase.c&quot; FORM 0xe &quot;DW_FORM_strp&quot;</preline>
<preline> &lt;1&gt; tag: 46 DW_TAG_subprogram  name: &quot;is_strstrnocase&quot; FORM 0xe &quot;DW_FORM_strp&quot;</preline>
<preline> =================</preline>
<preline> ==1666==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address</preline>
<preline>   0xb5846db9 at p</preline>
<preline> c 0x080b3a1b bp 0xbfa75d18 sp 0xbfa75d08</preline>
<preline> READ of size 1 at 0xb5846db9 thread T0</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x80b3a1a in _dwarf_get_size_of_val /home/puzzor/libdwarf-code/</preline>
<preline>        libdwarf/dwarf_util.c:208</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x8056602 in _dwarf_next_die_info_ptr /home/puzzor/libdwarf-code/</preline>
<preline>        libdwarf/dwarf_die_deliv.c:1353</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x8057f4b in dwarf_child /home/puzzor/libdwarf-code/libdwarf/</preline>
<preline>       dwarf_die_de liv.c:1688</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x804b5fa in get_die_and_siblings simplereader.c:637</preline>
<preline>    #4 0x804b65c in get_die_and_siblings simplereader.c:643</preline>
<preline>    #5 0x804b3f3 in read_cu_list simplereader.c:611</preline>
<preline>    #6 0x804aeae in main simplereader.c:533</preline>
<preline>    #7 0xb6ffe275 in __libc_start_main (/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x18275)</preline>
<preline>    #8 0x80491c0  (/home/puzzor/libdwarf-code/dwarfexample/simplereader+</preline>
<preline>         0x80491c 0)</preline>
<preline> 0xb5846db9 is located 0 bytes to the right of 249-byte region</preline>
<preline>    [0xb5846cc0,0xb5846db9)</preline>
<preline> allocated by thread T0 here:</preline>
<preline>    #0 0xb727fae4 in __interceptor_malloc (/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libasan.so.</preline>
<preline>       3+ 0xc3ae4)</preline>
<preline>    #1 0xb71a9b98  (/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libelf.so.1+0x9b98)</preline>
 </pre>
 For the orignal bug report see
 <pre>
<preline> https://sourceforge.net/p/libdwarf/bugs/5/</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-16</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/puzzor/heap_buf_overflow.o
</references>
<gitfixid>5dd64de047cd5ec479fb11fe7ff2692fd819e5e5</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-005</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-9558</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-11</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> negation of -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type
</vulnerability>
<description> With the right bit pattern in a signed leb number
 the signed leb decode would execute an unary minus with undefined
 effect. This is not known to generate an incorrect value,
 but it could, one supposes.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-11</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-2/00050-libdwarf-negate-itself
</references>
<gitfixid>4f19e1050cd8e9ddf2cb6caa061ff2fec4c9b5f9</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-004</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-9275</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Heap overflow in dwarf_skim_forms()
</vulnerability>
<description> If a non-terminated string
  in a DWARF5 macro section
  ends a section it can result in accessing memory not
  in the application (out of bounds read).
  dwarf_macro5.c(in _dwarf_skim_forms()).
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-2/00027-libdwarf-heapoverflow-_dwarf_skim_forms
</references>
<gitfixid>583f8834083b5ef834c497f5b47797e16101a9a6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-003</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-9276</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Bad aranges length leads to overflow and bad pointer
</vulnerability>
<description>  in dwarf_arange.c(dwarf_get_aranges_list) an aranges
 header with corrupt data could, with an overflowing calculation,
 result in pointers to invalid or inappropriate memory being
 dereferenced.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-2/00026-libdwarf-heapoverflow-dwarf_get_aranges_list
</references>
<gitfixid>583f8834083b5ef834c497f5b47797e16101a9a6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20180129.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-002</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> heap overflow in get_attr_value
</vulnerability>
<description> Libdwarf failed to check for a bogus
 length in dwarf_form.c (dwarf_formblock()) resulting
 in a pointer pointing outside of the intended memory
 region.  Anything could happen in the subsequent
 use of the bogus pointer.
 <pre>
<preline> 0x61300000de1c is located 0 bytes to the right of 348-byte region</preline>
<preline> [0x61300000dcc0,0x61300000de1c)</preline>
<preline> allocated by thread T0 here:</preline>
<preline>   #0 0x4c0ad8 in malloc /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/llvm-3.8.1-</preline>
<preline> r2/work/llvm-3.8.1.src/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cc:52</preline>
<preline>   #1 0x7f883cfc6206 in __libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock /tmp/portage/dev-</preline>
<preline> libs/elfutils-0.166/work/elfutils-0.166/libelf/elf_getdata.c:318</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-2/00025-libdwarf-heapoverflow-get_attr_value
</references>
<gitfixid>583f8834083b5ef834c497f5b47797e16101a9a6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20170416.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201611-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-11-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Agostino Sarubbo</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Memory allocation failure in do_decompress_zlib
</vulnerability>
<description> In decompressing a zlib compressed section if
 the decompressed section size is nonsense (too large)
 an attempted malloc will fail and could let an exception
 propagate to callers.
 <pre>
<preline>  ==27994==WARNING: AddressSanitizer failed to allocate 0x62696c2f7273752f</preline>
<preline>  bytes ==27994==AddressSanitizer's allocator is terminating the process</preline>
<preline>  instead of returning 0</preline>
<preline>  ...</preline>
<preline>   #6 0x4c0ab1 in malloc /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/llvm-3.8.1-</preline>
<preline>   #8 0x5b582e in _dwarf_load_section</preline>
<preline>   #9 0x5bb479 in dwarf_srcfiles</preline>
<preline>   #10 0x5145cd in print_one_die_section</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-11-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/sarubbo-2/00024-libdwarf-memalloc-do_decompress_zlib
</references>
<gitfixid>583f8834083b5ef834c497f5b47797e16101a9a6</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20170416.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201610-003</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-8679</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-10-02</datereported>
<reportedby>agostino</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> dwarf_get_size_of_val out of bounds read
</vulnerability>
<description> The _dwarf_get_size_of_val function in
  libdwarf/dwarf_util.c in Libdwarf before 20161124
  allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service
  (out-of-bounds read) by calling the dwarfdump command
  on a crafted file.
  <pre>
<preline>  www.securityfocus.com/bid/93601</preline>
<preline>  blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2016/10/06/libdwarf-heap-based-</preline>
<preline>  buffer-overflow-in-_dwarf_get_size_of_val-dwarf_util-c/</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-10-04</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>efe48cad0693d6994d9a7b561e1c3833b073a624</gitfixid>
<tarrelease></tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201610-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-8680</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-10-02</datereported>
<reportedby>agostino</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of bounds read
</vulnerability>
<description> The _dwarf_get_abbrev_for_code function in
  dwarf_util.c in libdwarf 20161001 and earlier allows remote
  attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read)
  by calling the dwarfdump command on a crafted file.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385690</preline>
<preline>  www.securityfocus.com/bid/93592</preline>
<preline>  Duplicate of CVE-2016-8681</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-10-04</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>efe48cad0693d6994d9a7b561e1c3833b073a624</gitfixid>
<tarrelease></tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201610-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-8681</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-10-02</datereported>
<reportedby>agostino</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of bounds read
</vulnerability>
<description> The _dwarf_get_abbrev_for_code function in
  dwarf_util.c in libdwarf 20161001 and earlier allows remote
  attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read)
  by calling the dwarfdump command on a crafted file.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385690</preline>
<preline>  www.securityfocus.com/bid/93592</preline>
<preline>  Duplicate of CVE-2016-8680</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-10-04</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid>efe48cad0693d6994d9a7b561e1c3833b073a624</gitfixid>
<tarrelease></tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201609-004</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-7510</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-09-17</datereported>
<reportedby>Puzzor</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> libdwarf 20160613 Out-of-Bounds read
</vulnerability>
<description>  read line table program Out-of-Bounds read
 line_ptr in dwarf_line_table_reader_common.c:1433 Out-of-Bounds read
 See:
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377015</preline>
<preline> https://sourceforge.net/p/libdwarf/bugs/4/</preline>
 </pre>
 <pre>
<preline> # Address Sanitizer Output</preline>
<preline> ==27763==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0xf4603f84 at pc 0x8408ede bp 0xffff6518 sp 0xffff6510</preline>
<preline> READ of size 1 at 0xf4603f84 thread T0</preline>
<preline> #0 0x8408edd in read_line_table_program /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/libdwarf/./dwarf_line_table_reader_common.c:1433</preline>
<preline> #1 0x83f716c in _dwarf_internal_srclines /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/libdwarf/./dwarf_line.c:690</preline>
<preline> #2 0x841436c in dwarf_srclines_b /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/libdwarf/./dwarf_line.c:944</preline>
<preline> #3 0x81fbc28 in print_line_numbers_this_cu /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/dwarfdump/print_lines.c:763</preline>
<preline> #4 0x815c191 in print_one_die_section /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/dwarfdump/print_die.c:850</preline>
<preline> #5 0x81565c1 in print_infos /home/puzzor/test-fuzzing/code/dwarfdump</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW201609-004/poc
</references>
<gitfixid>3767305debcba8bd7e1c483ae48c509d25399252</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201609-003</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-7410</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-09-13</datereported>
<reportedby>https://marc.info/?l=oss-security&amp;m=147391785920048&amp;w=2</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> libdwarf 20160613 heap-buffer-overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> With AddressSanitizer,
  we found a Heap-Buffer-overflow in the latest
  release version of dwarfdump. The crash output is as follows:
  <pre>
<preline>  See also:</preline>
<preline>  https://marc.info/?l=oss-security&amp;m=147378394815872&amp;w=2</preline>
<preline>  The testcase poc is from this web page.</preline>
  </pre>
  <pre>
<preline>  ==17411==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address</preline>
<preline>  0xf3808904 at pc 0x80a6f76 bp 0xffb95e78 sp 0xffb95a5c</preline>
<preline>  READ of size 4 at 0xf3808904 thread T0</preline>
<preline>  ==17411==WARNING: Trying to symbolize code, but external symbolizer is</preline>
<preline>  not initialized!</preline>
<preline>    #0 0x80a6f75 in __interceptor_memcpy ??:?</preline>
<preline>    #1 0x8426c3b in _dwarf_read_loc_section</preline>
<preline>  /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc.c:919</preline>
<preline>    #2 0x84250e2 in _dwarf_get_loclist_count</preline>
<preline>  /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc.c:970</preline>
<preline>    #3 0x8438826 in dwarf_get_loclist_c</preline>
<preline>  /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/./dwarf_loc2.c:551</preline>
<preline>    #4 0x81a1be8 in get_location_list</preline>
<preline>  /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/dwarfdump/print_die.c:3523</preline>
<preline>    #5 0x816e1a2 in print_attribute</preline>
  </pre>
  _dwarf_get_loclist_header_start() is not cautious about values
  in the header being absurdly large.
  Unclear as yet if this is the problem
  but it is a potential problem (fixed for next release).
  <pre>
<preline>  Address Sanitizer in gcc reproduces the report.</preline>
<preline>  In _dwarf_read_loc_section() the simple calculation of</preline>
<preline>  loc_section_end was wrong, so end-of section was</preline>
<preline>  incorrect for the local reads.</preline>
<preline>  With that fixed we get DW_DLE_READ_LITTLEENDIAN_ERROR when</preline>
<preline>  libdwarf attempts to read off end of section.</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW201609-003/poc
</references>
<gitfixid>3767305debcba8bd7e1c483ae48c509d25399252</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201609-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-7511</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-09-18</datereported>
<reportedby>Shi Ji (@Puzzor)</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> libdwarf 20160613 Integer Overflow
</vulnerability>
<description> In dwarf_get_size_of_val() with
  fuzzed DWARF data we get a SEGV.
  <pre>
<preline>  See</preline>
<preline>  https://sourceforge.net/p/libdwarf/bugs/3/</preline>
  </pre>
  <pre>
<preline>  ==6825== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x0583903c (pc 0xb61f1a98 sp 0xbfa388b4 bp 0xbfa38d08 T0)</preline>
<preline>  AddressSanitizer can not provide additional info.</preline>
<preline>  #1 0xb61e3c0b (/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libasan.so.0+0xdc0b)</preline>
<preline>  #2 0x80a21b1 in _dwarf_get_size_of_val /home/fuzzing/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/dwarf_util.c:210</preline>
<preline>  #3 0x8054214 in _dwarf_next_die_info_ptr /home/fuzzing/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/dwarf_die_deliv.c:1340</preline>
<preline>  #4 0x80557a5 in dwarf_child /home/fuzzing/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/dwarf_die_deliv.c:1640</preline>
<preline>  #5 0x804b23f in get_die_and_siblings /home/fuzzing/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/dwarfexample/./simplereader.c:573</preline>
  </pre>
  _dwarf_make_CU_Context() is insufficiently cautious about
  the length of a CU being absurd.
  Unclear as yet if this is the problem
  but it is a problem and is fixed for next release.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-09-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW201609-002/DW201609-002-poc
</references>
<gitfixid>3767305debcba8bd7e1c483ae48c509d25399252</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201609-001</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-09-16</datereported>
<reportedby>STARLAB</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> libdwarf 20160613 die_info_ptr in dwarf_die_deliv.c: 1533 Out-Of_bounds
</vulnerability>
<description> At line 1533 of dwarf_die_deliv.c a
 pointer dereference is done with a pointer pointing
 past the end of the CU data.
 <pre>
<preline> see</preline>
<preline> https://sourceforge.net/p/libdwarf/bugs/2/</preline>
 </pre>
 <pre>
<preline> ==8054==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on</preline>
<preline>    address 0xf4c027ab at pc 0x819e4a4 bp 0xff88eb38 sp 0xff88eb30</preline>
<preline> READ of size 1 at 0xf4c027ab thread T0</preline>
<preline> #0 0x819e4a3 in dwarf_siblingof_b /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/libdwarf/dwarf_die_deliv.c:1533</preline>
<preline> #1 0x8116201 in print_die_and_children_internal /home/starlab/fuzzing/dwarf-20160613/dwarfdump/print_die.c:1157</preline>
<preline> Bug report on sourceforge.net bug list for libdwarf.</preline>
<preline> The bad pointer dereference is due to libdwarf</preline>
<preline> not noticing that the DWARF in that file is corrupt.</preline>
<preline> In addition</preline>
<preline> The code was not noticing that it could dereference</preline>
<preline> a pointer that pointed out of bounds in the end-sibling-list</preline>
<preline> loop.</preline>
 </pre>
 <pre>
<preline> The example from the bug report (DW201609-001-poc) has</preline>
<preline> the same problem.</preline>
<preline> dwarfdump now reports DW_DLE_SIBLING_LIST_IMPROPER</preline>
<preline> on both test2.o and DW201609-001-poc.</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-09-17</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/DW201609-001/test2.o
  regressiontests/DW201609-001/DW201609-001-poc
</references>
<gitfixid>3767305debcba8bd7e1c483ae48c509d25399252</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-020</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5027</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-04-25</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu,lieanu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> NULL dereference in  _dwarf_decode_s_leb128
</vulnerability>
<description> dwarf_form.c in libdwarf 20160115 allows
  remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash)
  via a crafted elf file
  Apparently no crafted object file presented.
  However the code fix is presented in the report
  at openwall.com.
  Discovered the CVE November 2021
  To attack the code just pass the argument
  Dwarf_Word * leb128_length as a NULL pointer (that is allowed).
  The code was fixed in dwarf_leb.c on 2016-04-27 20:00:06.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330237</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/24/1</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/25/1</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-27</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-019</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5028</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-23</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference in print_frame_inst_bytes (dwarfdump)
</vulnerability>
<description> The null dereference is due to a corrupted
 object file. Libdwarf was not dealing with empty (bss-like)
 sections since it really did not expect to see such in
 sections it reads!  Now libdwarf catches the object error
 so dwarfdump sees the section as empty (as indeed it is!).
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-23</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/NULLdeference0522c.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>a55b958926cc67f89a512ed30bb5a22b0adb10f4</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-018</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5029</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-22</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference in create_fullest_file_path().
</vulnerability>
<description> The null dereference in create_fullest_file_path()
 causes a crash. This is due to corrupted dwarf and the fix
 detects this corruption and if that null string pointer
 happens undetected a static string is substituted so
 readers can notice the situation.
 <pre>
<preline>  202             }</preline>
<preline> 203             if (dirno &gt; 0 &amp;&amp; fe-&gt;fi_dir_index &gt; 0) {</preline>
<preline> 204                 inc_dir_name = (char *)</preline>
<preline>                         line_context-&gt;lc_include_directories[</preline>
<preline> 205                     fe-&gt;fi_dir_index - 1];</preline>
<preline> 206                 incdirnamelen = strlen(inc_dir_name);  &lt;- $pc</preline>
<preline> 207             }</preline>
<preline> 208             full_name = (char *) _dwarf_get_alloc(dbg,</preline>
<preline> #0  create_fullest_file_path (dbg=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> fe=0x68d510, line_context=0x68c4f0, name_ptr_out=&lt;optimized</preline>
<preline> out&gt;, error=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ./dwarf_line.c:206</preline>
<preline> #1  0x00007ffff7b6d3f9 in dwarf_filename (context=&lt;optimized</preline>
<preline> out&gt;, fileno_in=&lt;optimized out&gt;, ret_filename=0x7fffffffe280,</preline>
<preline> error=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ./dwarf_line.c:1418</preline>
<preline> #2  dwarf_linesrc (line=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> ret_linesrc=&lt;optimized out&gt;, error=&lt;optimized out&gt;) at</preline>
<preline> ./dwarf_line.c:1436</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/NULLdereference0522.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>acae971371daa23a19358bc62204007d258fbc5e</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-017</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5030</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-19</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Null dereference bug in  _dwarf_calculate_info_section_end_ptr().
</vulnerability>
<description> NULL dereference bug in _dwarf_calculate_info_section_end_ptr().
 <pre>
<preline> 1742         Dwarf_Off off2 = 0;</preline>
<preline> 1743         Dwarf_Small *dataptr = 0;</preline>
<preline> 1744</preline>
<preline> 1745         dbg = context-&gt;cc_dbg;</preline>
<preline> 1746         dataptr = context-&gt;cc_is_info? dbg-&gt;de_debug_info.dss_data:                 &lt;- $pc</preline>
<preline> 1747             dbg-&gt;de_debug_types.dss_data;</preline>
<preline> 1748         off2 = context-&gt;cc_debug_offset;</preline>
<preline> 1749         info_start = dataptr + off2;</preline>
<preline> 1750         info_end = info_start + context-&gt;cc_length +</preline>
<preline> #0  _dwarf_calculate_info_section_end_ptr</preline>
<preline> (context=context@entry=0x0) at dwarf_query.c:1746</preline>
<preline> #1  0x00002aaaaace307d in</preline>
<preline> _dwarf_extract_string_offset_via_str_offsets</preline>
<preline> (dbg=dbg@entry=0x655a70, info_data_ptr=0x6629f0</preline>
<preline> &quot;&quot;, attrnum=attrnum@entry=121,</preline>
<preline> attrform=attrform@entry=26, cu_context=0x0,</preline>
<preline> str_sect_offset_out=str_sect_offset_out@entry=0x7fffffffd718,</preline>
<preline> error=error@entry=0x7fffffffd878) at dwarf_form.c:1099</preline>
<preline> #2  0x00002aaaaacf4ed7 in dwarf_get_macro_defundef</preline>
<preline> (macro_context=macro_context@entry=0x65b790,</preline>
<preline> op_number=op_number@entry=1,</preline>
<preline> line_number=line_number@entry=0x7fffffffd858,</preline>
<preline> index=index@entry=0x7fffffffd860,</preline>
<preline> offset=offset@entry=0x7fffffffd868,</preline>
<preline> forms_count=forms_count@entry=0x7fffffffd7ce,</preline>
<preline> macro_string=macro_string@entry=0x7fffffffd870,</preline>
<preline> error=error@entry=0x7fffffffd878) at dwarf_macro5.c:557</preline>
<preline> ------</preline>
<preline> _dwarf_calculate_info_section_end_ptr (context=context@entry=0x0) at</preline>
<preline>   dwarf_query.c:1746</preline>
<preline> 1746        dataptr = context-&gt;cc_is_info? dbg-&gt;de_debug_info.dss_data:</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; p/x $rdi</preline>
<preline> $4 = 0x0</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/NULLdereference0519.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>6fa3f710ee6f21bba7966b963033a91d77c952bd</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-016</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-19</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> Invalid dwarf leads to
 dwarfdump crash in print_frame_inst_bytes.
</vulnerability>
<description> Corrupted dwarf crashes dwarfdump
 <pre>
<preline> 1297         }</preline>
<preline> 1298         len = len_in;</preline>
<preline> 1299         endpoint = instp + len;</preline>
<preline> 1300         for (; len &gt; 0;) {</preline>
<preline> 1301             unsigned char ibyte = *instp;           &lt;- $pc</preline>
<preline> 1302             int top = ibyte &amp; 0xc0;</preline>
<preline> 1303             int bottom = ibyte &amp; 0x3f;</preline>
<preline> 1304             int delta = 0;</preline>
<preline> 1305             int reg = 0;</preline>
<preline> #0  print_frame_inst_bytes (dbg=dbg@entry=0x655ca0,</preline>
<preline> cie_init_inst=&lt;optimized out&gt;, len_in=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> data_alignment_factor=-4, code_alignment_factor=4,</preline>
<preline> addr_size=addr_size@entry=4, offset_size=4, version=3,</preline>
<preline> config_data=config_data@entry=0x63cda0 &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;)</preline>
<preline> at print_frames.c:1301</preline>
<preline> #1  0x000000000041b70c in print_one_cie</preline>
<preline> (dbg=dbg@entry=0x655ca0, cie=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> cie_index=cie_index@entry=2, address_size=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> config_data=config_data@entry=0x63cda0 &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;)</preline>
<preline> at print_frames.c:1161</preline>
<preline> #2  0x000000000041cf52 in print_frames (dbg=0x655ca0,</preline>
<preline> print_debug_frame=print_debug_frame@entry=1, print_eh_frame=0,</preline>
<preline> config_data=config_data@entry=0x63cda0 &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;)</preline>
<preline> at print_frames.c:2229</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; p/x $r13</preline>
<preline> $1 = 0x4bcad8</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; p/x *$r13</preline>
<preline> Cannot access memory at address 0x4bcad8</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-22</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB_READ0519.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>6fa3f710ee6f21bba7966b963033a91d77c952bd</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-015</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5031</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-17</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in print_frame_inst_bytes()
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 an invalid read in  print_frame_inst_bytes().
 <pre>
<preline> 1294         for (; len &gt; 0;) {</preline>
<preline> 1295             unsigned char ibyte = *instp;           &lt;- $pc</preline>
<preline> 1296             int top = ibyte &amp; 0xc0;</preline>
<preline> #0  print_frame_inst_bytes (dbg=dbg@entry=0x654c80,</preline>
<preline>    cie_init_inst=&lt;optimized out&gt;, len=503715, data_alignment_factor=-4,</preline>
<preline>    code_alignment_factor=1, addr_size=addr_size@entry=4, offset_size=4,</preline>
<preline>    version=3, config_data=config_data@entry=0x63bda0</preline>
<preline>    &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;) at print_frames.c:1295</preline>
<preline> #1  0x000000000041b64c in print_one_cie (dbg=dbg@entry=0x654c80,</preline>
<preline>    cie=&lt;optimized out&gt;, cie_index=cie_index@entry=1,</preline>
<preline>    address_size=&lt;optimized out&gt;, config_data=</preline>
<preline>    config_data@entry=0x63bda0 &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;) at print_frames.c:1161</preline>
<preline> #2  0x000000000041ce92 in print_frames (dbg=0x654c80,</preline>
<preline>    print_debug_frame=print_debug_frame@entry=1, print_eh_frame=0,</preline>
<preline>    config_data=config_data@entry=0x63bda0 &lt;g_config_file_data&gt;)</preline>
<preline>    at print_frames.c:2209</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; x/10x $r13</preline>
<preline> 0x5e7981:       Cannot access memory at address 0x5e7981</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; p/x $r13</preline>
<preline> $14 = 0x5e7981</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2015-05-18</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB0517_03.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>ac6673e32f3443a5d36c2217cb814000930b2c54</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-014</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5032</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-17</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in dwarf_get_xu_hash_entry()
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 an invalid read in dwarf_get _xu_hash_entry, lin 211.
 <pre>
<preline> #0  dwarf_get_xu_hash_entry (xuhdr=xuhdr@entry=0x657360,</preline>
<preline>    index=index@entry=2897626028, hash_value=</preline>
<preline>    hash_value@entry=0x7fffffffd5b0,</preline>
<preline>    index_to_sections=index_to_sections@entry=0x7fffffffd5a8,</preline>
<preline>    err=err@entry=0x7fffffffdb08) at dwarf_xu_index.c:211</preline>
<preline> #1  0x00002aaaaacfd05e in _dwarf_search_fission_for_key (</preline>
<preline>    dbg=0x654a50, error=0x7fffffffdb08, percu_index_out=&lt;synthetic pointer&gt;,</preline>
<preline>    key_in=0x7fffffffd670, xuhdr=0x657360) at dwarf_xu_index.c:363</preline>
<preline> #2  dwarf_get_debugfission_for_key (dbg=dbg@entry=0x654a50,</preline>
<preline>    key=key@entry=0x7fffffffd670, key_type=key_type@entry=0x2aaaaad15e2a</preline>
<preline>    &quot;tu&quot;, percu_out=percu_out@entry=0x65a830,</preline>
<preline>    error=error@entry=0x7fffffffdb08) at dwarf_xu_index.c:577</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2015-05-18</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB0517_02.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>ac6673e32f3443a5d36c2217cb814000930b2c54</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-013</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5033</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-17</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in print_exprloc_content
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 an invalid write in print_exprloc_content.
 <pre>
<preline> #0  print_exprloc_content (dbg=dbg@entry=0x654ea0,</preline>
<preline>    die=die@entry=0x65b110, attrib=attrib@entry=0x65b590,</preline>
<preline>    esbp=esbp@entry=0x7fffffffcef0, showhextoo=1) at print_die.c:4182</preline>
<preline> #1  0x0000000000412fb1 in get_attr_value (dbg=dbg@entry=0x654ea0,</preline>
<preline>    tag=&lt;optimized out&gt;, die=die@entry=0x65b110,</preline>
<preline>    dieprint_cu_goffset=dieprint_cu_goffset@entry=11,</preline>
<preline>    attrib=attrib@entry=0x65b590, srcfiles=srcfiles@entry=0x0,</preline>
<preline>    cnt=cnt@entry=0, esbp=esbp@entry=0x7fffffffcef0, show_form=0,</preline>
<preline>    local_verbose=0) at print_die.c:4972</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2015-05-18</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB0517_01.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>ac6673e32f3443a5d36c2217cb814000930b2c54</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-012</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5034</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-13</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB write. From relocation records
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 an invalid write in dwarf_elf_access.c
 (when doing the relocations).
 Adding the relocation value to anything overflowed
 and disguised the bad relocation record.
 With a 32bit kernel build the test could show
 a double-free and coredump due to the unchecked invalid
 writes from relocations.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-17</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/HeapOverflow0513.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>10ca310f64368dc083efacac87732c02ef560a92</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-011</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5035</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-06</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in _dwarf_read_line_table_header
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 null dereference at line 62
 of dwarf_line_table_reader.c.
 Frame code and linetable code was not noticing data corruption.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB_read4.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>82d8e007851805af0dcaaff41f49a2d48473334b</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-010</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5036</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-06</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in dump_block
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 null dereverence at line 186
 of dump_block() in print_sections.c
 Frame code was not noticing frame data corruption.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB_read3.elf
 regressiontests/liu/OOB_read3_02.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>82d8e007851805af0dcaaff41f49a2d48473334b</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-009</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5037</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-05</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> NULL dereference in _dwarf_load_section
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 null dereverence at line 1010
 if(!strncmp(&quot;ZLIB&quot;,(const char *)src,4)) {
 in dwarf_init_finish.c
 The zlib code was not checking for
 a corrupted length-value.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-06</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/NULLderefer0505_01.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>b6ec2dfd850929821626ea63fb0a752076a3c08a</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-008</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5038</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-05</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read in dwarf_get_macro_startend_file()
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 out of bound read.
 OOB at:
 line 772  *src_file_name = macro_context-&gt;mc_srcfiles[trueindex];
 in dwarf_macro5.c
 A string offset into .debug_str is outside the bounds
 of the .debug_str section.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-12</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB0505_02.elf
 regressiontests/liu/OOB0505_02_02.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>82d8e007851805af0dcaaff41f49a2d48473334b</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160923.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-007</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5039</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-05</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> OOB read bug in get_attr_value()
</vulnerability>
<description> Test object shows
 out of bound read.
 Object had data all-bits-on so
 the existing length check did not work
 due to wraparound. Added a check
 not susceptible to that error (DW_DLE_FORM_BLOCK_LENGTH_ERROR).
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-06</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/OOB0505_01.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>eb1472afac95031d0c9dd8c11d527b865fe7deb8</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-006</dwid>
<cve></cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-05</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Two Heap-Overflow bug
</vulnerability>
<description> Two test objects showing
 a heap overflow in libdwarf when
 using dwarfdump.
 It seems that these were fixed
 by the previous git update.
 Neither gdb nor valgrind find any errors
 when building with yesterday's commit.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/free_invalid_address.elf
 regressiontests/liu/heapoverflow01b.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-005</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5040</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A specially crafted DWARF section
 results in  reading a compilation unit header
 that crashes the application.
</vulnerability>
<description> If the data read for a compilation unit header
 contains a too large length value the library
 will read outside of its bounds and crash the application.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/null02.elf
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332149</preline>
 </pre>
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-004</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5041</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A specially crafted DWARF section
 results in a null dereference reading debugging
 information entries  which
 crashes the application.
</vulnerability>
<description> If no DW_AT_name is present in a debugging
 information entry  using DWARF5 macros
 a null dereference in dwarf_macro5.c will
 crash the application.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/null01.elf
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332148</preline>
 </pre>
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-003</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5042</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A specially crafted DWARF section
 results in an infinite loop that eventually
 crashes the application.
</vulnerability>
<description> In dwarf_get_aranges_list()
 an invalid count will iterate, reading from memory
 addresses that increase till it all fails.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/infiniteloop.elf
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332145</preline>
 </pre>
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5043</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A specially crafted DWARF section
 results in a read outside the bounds of in memory
 data so the calling application can crash.
</vulnerability>
<description> Out of bound read bug in libdwarf git code.
 dwarf_dealloc() did not check the Dwarf_Ptr space argument
 before using it. This will lead to a out-of-bound read bug.
 <pre>
<preline> backtrace:</preline>
<preline> #0  dwarf_dealloc (dbg=dbg@entry=0x655f30, space=0xa0,</preline>
<preline> alloc_type=alloc_type@entry=1) at dwarf_alloc.c:477</preline>
<preline> #1  0x00002aaaaacf3296 in dealloc_srcfiles</preline>
<preline> (dbg=0x655f30, srcfiles=0x66b8f0, srcfiles_count=17) at</preline>
<preline> dwarf_macro5.c:1025 #2  0x00002aaaaacf50e6 in dealloc_srcfiles</preline>
<preline> (srcfiles_count=&lt;optimized out&gt;, srcfiles=&lt;optimized out&gt;,</preline>
<preline> dbg=&lt;optimized out&gt;) at dwarf_macro5.c:1021 -----</preline>
<preline> gef&gt; p &amp;r-&gt;rd_dbg</preline>
<preline> $14 = (void **) 0x90</preline>
 </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/outofbound01.elf
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332144</preline>
 </pre>
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201605-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-5044</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-05-02</datereported>
<reportedby>Yue Liu</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> A specially crafted DWARF section
 results in a duplicate free() in libdwarf and
 the calling application will crash.
</vulnerability>
<description> In file dwarf_elf_access.c:1071
 <pre>
<preline> WRITE_UNALIGNED(dbg,target_section + offset,</preline>
<preline>     &amp;outval,sizeof(outval),reloc_size);</preline>
 </pre>
 A crafted ELF file may lead to a large offset value, which
 bigger than the size of target_section heap chunk, then this
 WRITE_UNALIGNED() function will write the value of &amp;outval
 out of the heap chunk.
 offset is a 64bit unsigned int value, so this is more than
 a heap overflow bug, but also a Out-of-Bound write bug.
 So WRITE_UNALIGNED() need more strictly checking to prevent
 this.
</description>
<datefixed>2016-05-04</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/liu/heapoverflow01.elf
 <pre>
<preline> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332141</preline>
 </pre>
</references>
<gitfixid>98a3da1e8237fe0d45b67ef77f3fa5ed9ff0215f</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201601-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-2050</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-01-19</datereported>
<reportedby>Qixue Xiao</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of bound write in get_abbrev_array_info
</vulnerability>
<description> Crashes the calling program. Requires
  a crafted object file.
  <pre>
<preline>  valgrind ./dwarfdump -ka aw.elf</preline>
<preline>  ==5358== Memcheck, a memory error detector</preline>
<preline>  ==5358== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.</preline>
<preline>  ==5358== Using Valgrind-3.10.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info</preline>
<preline>  ==5358== Command: ../../llvm-codes/dwarf-20151114/dwarfdump/dwarfdump -ka aw.elf</preline>
<preline>  ==5358==</preline>
<preline>  ==5358== Invalid write of size 8</preline>
<preline>  ==5358==    at 0x40DA25: get_abbrev_array_info (in</preline>
<preline>  /home/xqx/test/libdwarf-test/llvm-codes/dwarf-20151114/dwarfdump/dwarfdump)</preline>
<preline>  ==5358==    by 0x40FD92: print_one_die_section (in</preline>
<preline>  /home/xqx/test/libdwarf-test/llvm-codes/dwarf-20151114/dwarfdump/dwarfdump)</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/01/19/9</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/01/25/3</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-01-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/xqx-b/aw.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>d9d40e4d802e626065ce37ff384dd69c43bc499</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201601-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2016-2091</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2016-01-12</datereported>
<reportedby>Qixue Xiao</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability> Out of bound read in  dwarf_read_cie_fde_prefix()
</vulnerability>
<description> Crashes the calling program. Requires
  a crafted object file.
  <pre>
<preline>  *** DWARF CHECK: DW_DLE_DEBUG_FRAME_LENGTH_NOT_MULTIPLE</preline>
<preline>  len=0x00000010, len size=0x00000004, extn size=0x00000000, totl</preline>
<preline>  length=0x00000014, addr size=0x00000008, mod=0x00000004 must be zero</preline>
<preline>  in cie, offset 0x00000000. ***</preline>
<preline>  7   ==53495== Invalid read of size 2</preline>
<preline>  1 ==53495==    at 0x4C2F7E0: memcpy@@GLIBC_2.14 (in</preline>
<preline>  /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)</preline>
<preline>  2 ==53495==    by 0x43287F: dwarf_read_cie_fde_prefix (dwarf_frame2.c:934)</preline>
<preline>  3 ==53495==    by 0x431305: _dwarf_get_fde_list_internal (dwarf_frame2.c:268)</preline>
<preline>  4 ==53495==    by 0x42EB5F: dwarf_get_fde_list_eh (dwarf_frame.c:1101)</preline>
<preline>  5 ==53495==    by 0x41BABE: print_frames (print_frames.c:1835)</preline>
<preline>  6 ==53495==    by 0x40485B: process_one_file (dwarfdump.c:1323)</preline>
<preline>  7 ==53495==    by 0x403529: main (dwarfdump.c:630)</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/01/19/3</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/28/8</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2016-01-21</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/xqx-b/awbug5.elf
</references>
<gitfixid>d9d40e4d802e626065ce37ff384dd69c43bc499</gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201512-002</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2015-8538</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2015-12-14</datereported>
<reportedby>Adam Maris</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Out-of-bounds read in dwarf_leb.c
</vulnerability>
<description> libdwarf 20151114 and earlier allows remote
  attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer
  dereference and crash) via a debug_abbrev
  section marked NOBITS in an ELF file.
  The CVE report mentions a reproducer object file
  but such is not present.
  Due to recent tool advances (like
  coverity scan) we are confident this was fixed long ago.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291299</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/12/10/3</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2018-01-01</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201512-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2015-8750</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2015-12-26</datereported>
<reportedby>Qixue Xiao (xqx)</reportedby>
<product>libdwarf</product>
<vulnerability>  Null pointer dereference in libdwarf
</vulnerability>
<description> libdwarf 20151114 and earlier allows remote
  attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer
  dereference and crash) via a debug_abbrev
  section marked NOBITS in an ELF file.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294264</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/01/07/11</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2015-12-31</datefixed>
<references> regressiontests/xqx-c/awbug6.elf
</references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
<dwbug>
<dwid>DW201412-001</dwid>
<cve>CVE-2014-9482</cve>
<fuzzer></fuzzer>
<datereported>2014-12-31</datereported>
<reportedby>Adam Maris</reportedby>
<product>dwarfdump</product>
<vulnerability> Use after free vulnerability in Dwarfdump
</vulnerability>
<description> The use-after-free has no attached testcase
  anywhere.  Due to recent tool advances (like
  coverity scan) we are confident this was fixed long ago.
  <pre>
<preline>  bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177758</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/12/31/3</preline>
<preline>  www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/01/03/14</preline>
  </pre>
</description>
<datefixed>2018-01-01</datefixed>
<references></references>
<gitfixid></gitfixid>
<tarrelease>libdwarf-20160507.tar.gz</tarrelease>
</dwbug>
</dwarfbug>
