[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559F9DFF.7060508@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:27:11 +0200
From: Gsunde Orangen <gsunde.orangen@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS
These two issues (CVE-2015-5366 and CVE-2015-5364) - commit in May 30th:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=beb39db59d14990e401e235faf66a6b9b31240b0
are fixed upstream in: 3.10.81, 3.12.44, 3.14.45, 3.18.17, 4.0.6, and
4.1-rc7
Does anyone know the reason why it wasn't (yet?) included in the
latest 3.4.x release (3.4.108 as of 2015-06-19)?
Thanks,
Gsunde
On 2015-07-06, 11:23 cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>>> However, the presence of "return -EAGAIN" may also have been a
>>> security problem in some realistic circumstances. For
>>> example, maybe there's an attacker who can't transmit a flood
>>> with invalid checksums, but can sometimes inject one packet
>>> with an invalid checksum. The goal of this attacker isn't to
>>> cause a system hang; the goal is to cause an EPOLLET epoll
>>> application to stop reading for an indefinitely long period of
>>> time. This scenario can't also be covered by CVE-2015-5364. Is
>>> it better to have no CVE ID at all, e.g., is
>>> udp_recvmsg/udpv6_recvmsg simply not intended to defend against
>>> this scenario?
>
>> It seems reasonable to assign a second CVE ID to that issue.
>
> Use CVE-2015-5366.
>
>
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.
