[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:33:26 -0400
From: sophia <sophia@...ilofbits.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE request - Processor side channels using out of order execution
Hi,
Thanks for the reminder, the URL to the material for the out-of-order-exploitation setup is below:
http://sophia.re/side_channel_material <http://sophia.re/side_channel_material>
- Sophia
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> Sophia, Kurt, all -
>
> This is an old-fashioned mailing list, not business correspondence.
> Top-posting and over-quoting are discouraged. Also discouraged are what
> I call thanks-only postings. It's polite to thank the person, but
> unless you have something valuable to add, those postings are not worth
> distributing to all the list subscribers.
>
> To make my own posting more valuable (rather than moderation-only):
>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, sophia <sophia@...ilofbits.com> wrote:
>>>> Just wondering how to get more information about the process for
>>>> requesting a CVE for this vulnerability.
>
> Kurt provided that, but more importantly: you should be patient. MITRE
> are often slow at assigning CVE IDs. It's only been a week. They often
> need several weeks, unfortunately. (In contrast, Kurt is usually quick
> to assign CVE IDs on the distros list, but this only works for not yet
> public issues and is only acceptable if those issues are disclosed to
> the distros list primarily for the purpose of informing the distros
> rather than for acquiring a CVE ID. Having a CVE ID is too unimportant
> to be worth the risk.)
>
>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:24 PM, sophia <sophia@...ilofbits.com> wrote:
>>>>> The vulnerability definitely applies to hypervisors as used by popular
>>>>> commercial cloud platforms. These hypervisors try to guarantee that one
>>>>> user's processes in a VM are meant to be isolated from another VM's.
>>>>> Isolation is referenced as a feature multiple times in Xen's spec:
>>>>> http://www-archive.xenproject.org/files/Marketing/WhyXen.pdf.
>
> WhyXen.pdf does mention isolation, but it doesn't mention covert
> channels, leaving it ambiguous (to those of us aware of the possibility
> of covert channels) what level of isolation is actually intended. Maybe
> they need to revise the document to explicitly exclude covert channels.
>
> Historically, access control didn't automatically imply lack of covert
> channels. For example, per the Orange Book covert channels weren't even
> considered for the lower classes such as C1 and C2, where typical and
> "Trusted" multi-user systems fell. They are only considered starting
> with B2 and B3, which rarely applied:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computer_System_Evaluation_Criteria#Divisions_and_classes
>
> Once again, to avoid misunderstanding, I only use this as a historical
> reference.
>
>>>>> Also, I will release all of my code on my website when I get back to my
>>>>> server later today.
>
> Have you? Please post the URL in here.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Alexander
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (3833 bytes)
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.
