Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ