[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49AE303F.4030701@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:39:43 +0800
From: Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: kernel: memory disclosure in SO_BSDCOMPAT
gsopt
Eugene Teo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Steven M. Christey
> <coley@...us.mitre.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Eugene Teo wrote:
>>
>>> Eugene Teo wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The fix for CVE-2009-0676 (upstream commit df0bca04) is incomplete. Note
>>>> that the same problem of leaking kernel memory will reappear if someone
>>>> on some architecture uses struct timeval with some internal padding (for
>>>> example tv_sec 64-bit and tv_usec 32-bit) --- then, you are going to
>>>> leak the padded bytes to userspace.
>> Is this going to require a separate CVE identifier? If a new minor
>> version of the kernel wasn't released yet, then I'd consider the fix to be
>> little more than a couple patch-discussion messages in a single Bugzilla
>> entry.
>
> No, it shouldn't. Please use the same CVE name. Thanks.
But you might want to add the link to the new CVE-2009-0676 patch in:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0676
Thanks, Eugene
--
Eugene Teo / Red Hat Security Response Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
