Symantec Confirms AV Library Flaw, Promises Patch

the_flyswatter writes "Anti-virus vendor Symantec Corp. has publicly acknowledged that a high-risk buffer overflow vulnerability in its AntiVirus Library could lead to code execution attacks when RAR archive files are scanned. The company confirmed the issue was a buffer overflow in the AntiVirus component used to decompose RAR (Roshal Archive) files. 'A specially crafted RAR file could potentially cause this buffer overflow to occur and execute hostile content from the RAR file,' the advisory read. The bug also affects 15 consumer products, including the widely deployed Symantec Norton AntiVirus, Symantec Norton Internet Security Professional, Norton Personal Firewall and Symantec Norton Internet Security for Macintosh."

Comments

Why confess?

[Jotii]

Why did Symantec verify officially that this bug was present before fixing it? Now, evil RAR packages will probably be much more wide-spread than before.

like it wasn't bad enought before

[phntm]

i'm a netadmin on an irc network and i've seen many zombie botnets, most of them are running "up-to-date" symantec antivirus products and feel safe while behind their backs their systems keep ddosing and hogging bandwith.
symantec doesn't make me feel safe for sure.

Re:Inherent problems with AV software

[MichaelSmith]

Your best defence on the Internet is a hardware firewall router

If you have windows clients your internet gateway (web proxy, email server) needs to be aware of the sort of content which can impact the clients.

I lost a job supplying a linux router to a company with windows clients because the linux box just couldn't adequately protect the workstations.

Its not fair, but what is?

buffer overflow in unrar?

[wolf550e]

Does anyone know if Symantec wrote their own unrar library that is insecure or have they used Roshal's free code which was probably known to be insecure and someone just discoverd they didn't bother to fix it before including in their products?