Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 01:56:03 +0100 From: Ben Hutchings <benh@...ian.org> To: cve-assign@...re.org, carnil@...ian.org Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 22:48 -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote: > > > > https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/605854034260426753 > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=beb39db59d14990e401e235faf66a6b9b31240b0 > > > remote DoS via flood of UDP packets with invalid checksums > > It appears that you are primarily asking for a CVE ID for the issue > involving the absence of a cond_resched call. Use CVE-2015-5364. > > 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. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings - Debian developer, member of Linux kernel and LTS teams [ CONTENT OF TYPE application/pgp-signature SKIPPED ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ