GNU bug report logs - #25993
texlive CVE-2016-10243

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 25993 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#25993: texlive CVE-2016-10243
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:02:06 +0100

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> This fixes CVE-2016-10243:

Thanks for preparing the patch to fix this.

> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/texlive-texmf-CVE-2016-10243.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/texlive-texmf-CVE-2016-10243.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..3a9ae993f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/texlive-texmf-CVE-2016-10243.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +Fix CVE-2016-10243:
> +
> +https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2016-10243
> +
> +Patch adapted from upstream commit:
> +
> +https://www.tug.org/svn/texlive?view=revision&revision=42605
> +
> +--- trunk/Master/texmf-dist/web2c/texmf.cnf	2016/11/29 23:10:33	42604
> ++++ trunk/Master/texmf-dist/web2c/texmf.cnf	2016/11/29 23:27:53	42605
> +@@ -568,7 +568,6 @@ extractbb,\
> + gregorio,\
> + kpsewhich,\
> + makeindex,\
> +-mpost,\
> + repstopdf,\
> +
> + % we'd like to allow:
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/tex.scm b/gnu/packages/tex.scm

Is this sufficient?  I see here that two files need this change:

    https://www.tug.org/svn/texlive?view=revision&revision=42605

Should “trunk/Build/source/texk/kpathsea/texmf.cnf” also be patched?

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.