Dear Amateur Security Studier PAPAPAPAPAPAPA, The context in which the term memory leak is used should clue you in here. When used in this content, 'leaked' clearly means the contents are exposed to userspace. It clearly does not mean memory is allocated and then not freed. By the way, your posts are always stupid.
J On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:38:51 -0400 3APA3A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dear iDefense Labs, > >--Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 6:32:03 PM, you wrote to >[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > >iL> The vulnerability exists in the kernel ioctl() handler for >FIFOs. The >iL> I_PEEK ioctl is used to peek at a number of bytes contained in >the FIFO >iL> without actually removing them from the queue. One of the >arguments to >iL> this command, which represents the number of bytes to peek, is >a signed >iL> integer value. Since this parameter is not properly validated, >a >iL> negative value can cause large amounts of kernel memory to be >leaked. > >Can you please clarify this issue? According to subject it >looks like >information leak (information disclosure) issue, while >according to >description, it looks more like memory leak (Denial of Service) >issue. > > >-- >~/ZARAZA http://securityvulns.com/ > > >_______________________________________________ >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
