Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 05:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: cve-assign@...re.org To: benh@...ian.org Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, carnil@...ian.org Subject: Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> 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. - -- CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority M/S M300 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA [ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmkgoAAoJEKllVAevmvmsCWkH/1xhstkTg/oWb95ua9Jvr6rR hLq8qVNZoel+2k5/73YIkxOAi5UvNPn3/sb75p2vggTIeXhdLK6hJw8nUTRItyUR UhAWrwISpnOxHGKuVOjPoH4e9ujZLNXxDopZW0+eIJLh+Wb3ek00ohJhMNF4Cp5J 9vi759xuM/yNsOqkXE7daIWEHSgkjw1jTs43Hh4L6vV8ixuFN/mNM+u+ljiEGO1/ /SMDUS3ByZKJ+B7odl4fa9s4EB7BO8x0dvZlWeWaGLNShq30nYItpGGJ799lVS81 3JGqrUeqgUumyuy72bd0NtAH1IViOnkHV9MBBFB/G9Whl959h0xdrOiGJh3dxAw= =GBxR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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