Add a test about CVE-2022-37454 #143
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The test fails on 32-bits architecture. Probably we should create a new executable which can be executed only on 64-bits architectures. |
dinosaure
force-pushed
the
cve-2022-37454
branch
from
74143c8 to
e57b87c
Compare
dinosaure
added a commit
to dinosaure/opam-repository
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2023
CHANGES: - Add a test about CVE-2022-37454 (@dinosaure, mirage/digestif#143) - Lint the distribution and delete the `pkg-config` dependency (@dinosuare, 1eff5c5) - Fix primitives used for bytes and fix the support of `js_of_ocaml` 5 (@hhugo, mirage/digestif#144)
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a simple test which is a CVE-2022-37454 as reported into this article: https://mouha.be/sha-3-buffer-overflow/. Fortunately, it seems that we don't have the bug on the C implementation. However, the test take a big time and we don't systematically run it for our CI (/cc @hannesm who pointed out the CVE).