Libxml2's "no security embargoes" policy

Things like "panics on certain content" like [1] or [2] are "security bugs" now. By that standard anything that fixes a potential panic is a "security bug". I've probably fixed hundreds if not thousands of "security bugs" in my career by that standard.

Barely qualifies as a "security bug" yet it's rated as "6.2 Moderate" and "7.5 HIGH". To say nothing of gazillion "high severity" "regular expression DoS" nonsense and whatnot.

And the worst part is all of this makes it so much harder to find actual high-severity issues. It's not harmless spam.

[1]: https://github.com/gomarkdown/markdown/security/advisories/G...

[2]: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0373.html

The maintainer claims this is caused by allocator failure (malloc returning null), but it is still a valid bug. If you don't want to deal with malloc failures, just crash when malloc() returns null, instead of not checking malloc() result at all.

The maintainer could just write a wrapper around malloc that crashes on failure and replace all calls with the wrapper. It seems like an easy fix. Because almost no software can run where there is no heap memory so it makes no sense for the program to continue.

Another solution is to propagate every error back to the caller, but it is difficult and there is high probability that the caller won't bother checking the result because of laziness.

A quote from a bug report [1]:

> If xmlSchemaNewValue returns NULL (e.g., due to a failure of malloc), xmlSchemaDupVal checks for this and returns NULL.

[1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxml2/-/issues/905

But is it a high-severity security bug?

EDIT: That said, I'm on the maintainer's side here.

Is it thought? Certainly it is according the C and C++ standards, but POSIX adds:

> References to unmapped addresses shall result in a SIGSEGV signal

While time-traveling-UB is a theoretical possibility, practically POSIX compliant compilers won't reorder around potentially trapping operations (they will do the reverse, they might remove a null check if made redundant by a prior potentially trapping dereference) .

A real concern is if a null pointer is dereferenced with a large attacker-controlled offset that can avoid the trap, but that's more of an issue of failing to bound check.