-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reconsider usage of UBSAN #113
Comments
Also making a note that since the bug has been reported with RC (release-critical) severity, unless we fix it in Debian, it will be removed from the upcoming stable release (bookworm). |
Yeh, I don't think we actually need UBSAN. I just thought it might be a good idea when I added in. I didn't know it could introduce security vulnerability. I am just going to remove it for now, unless Adrian suggests that I should add ASAN alongside UBSAN, rather than just remove UBSAN. |
Address issue #113. Use of UBSAN in runtime could introduce vulnerabilities. Original bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031744 Reference: https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/02/17/9
Closing as fixed. |
The Debian security team believes the usage of UBSAN in HTTPDirFS may bring more harm than good:
Original bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031744
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: