[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FC72FC641B949240B947AC6F1F83FBAF090470B0@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:36:26 +0000
From: "Christey, Steven M." <coley@...re.org>
To: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: CVE Request/Guidance: Linux kernel cdc-wdm
buffer overflow triggered by device
While perhaps a questionable action in many environments, attaching a USB device is a common use case. The person attaching the device has a reasonable expectation that code will NOT be executed, and files will NOT be written outside the device, etc. without their explicit permission or configuration. There is also a reasonable expectation that the operation of the device will not perform actions against the OS without implicit user permission.
So, scenario 1 would clearly require a CVE.
For other scenarios, it should be considered whether the user/victim uses a "common" operation that is not obviously dangerous. In scenario 3, clicking on a file in a USB device is a common and reasonable operation, and unless that file is an executable or otherwise automatically implies code execution, then it is likely CVE-worthy if code execution, DoS, or some other operation can be performed that is not within the intended operation of the device.
I'm not sure I understand scenario 2 well enough to give direct advice, but even if the user installing the USB is targeted instead of the kernel, then it may qualify for a CVE.
- Steve
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eugene Teo [mailto:eugeneteo@...nel.sg]
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:51 AM
>To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
>Subject: Re: [oss-security] CVE Request/Guidance: Linux kernel cdc-wdm
>buffer overflow triggered by device
>
>Hi Marcus,
>
>On Thursday, 14 March 2013, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering ... do we consider attacks with special attack taylored USB
>> devices as CVE worthy?
>>
>> There is only some precedence in the CVE DB, but not much.
>>
>> I stumbled over this fix from one of my colleagues where a specifically
>> made USB device reporting the "cdc-wdm" USB class could cause a kernel
>> heap overflow.
>>
>> "Malicious attached devices" might fall into several categories:
>>
>> 1. Attaching the device causes the issue directly within the kernel /
>> autoloaded
>> module, without user interaction. (here the case)
>>
>>
>> 2. Attaching the device causes the issue when userspace, dependend on
>> e.g. desktop system, does initiate a seperate action (like an automount
>> and then exploitation of something) (so not direct a kernel, but a
>> kernel + GNOME/KDE interaction).
>>
>>
>> 3. User needs to do something with the attached device (like click on
>> a file on a USB disk)
>>
>>
>> I would consider (1) and (2) CVE worthy at least, not so sure with (3).
>
>
>I agree with (1) and (2). I have seen (3) with CVE names too. If a local,
>unprivileged user can cause an issue by accessing a file or listing a set
>of files in a directory due to a flaw in the underlying file system, I
>think it should have a CVE name assigned.
>
>Thanks, Eugene
>
>
>>
>> Ciao, Marcus
>>
>> commit c0f5ecee4e741667b2493c742b60b6218d40b3aa
>> Author: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de <javascript:;>>
>> Date: Tue Mar 12 14:52:42 2013 +0100
>>
>> USB: cdc-wdm: fix buffer overflow
>>
>> The buffer for responses must not overflow.
>> If this would happen, set a flag, drop the data and return
>> an error after user space has read all remaining data.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org <javascript:;>>
>> CC: stable@...nel.org <javascript:;>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
><gregkh@...uxfoundation.org<javascript:;>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
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.
