On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
Hi Bob,
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:11 AM Bob Friesenhahn
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Did you found time for further investigation of the report from the
SuSE maintainer? Is the original fix as per
http://hg.graphicsmagick.org/hg/GraphicsMagick/rev/648e3977a293 not
(completely) solving the security issue or incomplete/inadeguate in
the sense it introduces some regresssion (e.g. functionality wise)?
What was the concern of the SuSE maintainer?
I am back from vacation but have not investigated the issue yet.
Just a friendly reminder if you could look into this. The original
bugreport[1] doesn't contain any new information. But the SuSE
bugreport[2] which is referenced says "I believe all fixed".
I just checked and I am able to reproduce the problem using current
source code using a "Q8" AMD64 build. I think that a "Q16" build does
not fail in the same way. The difference may be due to the maximum
allowed pixels in one row (twice as many are allowed in a Q8 build).
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
[email protected], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Public Key, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/public-key.txt
