[sr-dev] [tracker] Assignee added: Crash if t_release() is executed after t_relay_to(), when this last returns -1

[Olle E. Johansson]

1 dec 2011 kl. 12:54 skrev Daniel-Constantin Mierla:

> 
> 
> On 12/1/11 12:44 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> 1 dec 2011 kl. 11:43 skrev Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/29/11 9:28 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>>> 29 nov 2011 kl. 18:57 skrev sip-router:
>>>> 
>>>>> THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A user has added themself to the list of users assigned to this task.
>>>>> 
>>>>> FS#184 - Crash if t_release() is executed after t_relay_to(), when this last returns -1
>>>>> User who did this - Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc)
>>>>> http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=184
>>>>> 
>>>> Now this was caused by bad configuraiton, but if we have had or will have crashes based on incoming MI, RPC or SIP messages, we should have a routing for how to handle security fixes in Kamailio. When evaluating open source projects I always check the security procedures.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone interested in assisting in writing up a document about this we can publish on the web site and try to follow if we get such an issue? I think we can happily steal from other projects, so it should not be hard work.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone objecting to implementing a process for handling security incidents?
>>> I have no objection in this regard, any contribution/managing process that will make usage of the project easier/more attractive for various people is welcome. The question will be who will take the work (e.g., reviewing, categorization, announcements to devels and community, ...).
>>> Personally, I try not to make a difference between bugs, but just try to solve asap, with priority on how common use case is the situation rising the bug.
>>> 
>>> Another question is categorizing 'security bugs' - in my understanding I consider such bugs when one can gain access to server or steal/compromise data from/on the server. Chasing situations are not in this category (IMO).
>> That's one side of it. The other is when a message sent over the network can put the server in a bad state or crash it - a DOS attack oppurtunity.
> 
> Yes, it is, but this causes crashes even when it is not an intentional attack. Maybe a better phrasing would have been "security risk" bugs -- those that can compromise the privacy and integrity of data on the server. Otherwise, yes, they are bugs causing crashing and server unavailability -- the very common bugs we had and going to have many times.
> 
> I would rather use two categories:
> - security - like access to server, data loss or unauthorized routing causing financial damages
> - stability - like crashing, memory leaks, etc... (when they don't cause a security flaw)
> 
> Again, this is my perception and I know the limits of security depends on the point of view of each person. At the end, perhaps who is going to undertake the job will make the decision...

I think there are clear definitions here we can copy. I'll take a look.

/O