Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:37:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "Hugues ANGUELKOV" <hugues.anguelkov@....univ-nantes.fr> To: tytso@...ena.mit.edu Cc: kseifried@...hat.com, sandeen@...hat.com, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CVE Request - Linux kernel (multiple versions) ext2/ext3 filesystem DoS Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:53:17 -0600 From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> To: oss-security <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com> Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: CVE Request - Linux kernel (multiple versions) ext2/ext3 filesystem DoS On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote: > > > You can mount the file system with "mount -o errors=continue" and this > will override the default behavior specified in the super block. > > I would argue that a Desktop or server system that had automount > should either (a) mount with -o errors=continue, or (b) force an fsck > on the file system before mounting it. > The problem is that: a) means I'll be mounting filesystems with errors that I may want to know about (but not have my system panic about) b) fsck takes a long time on large disks (the smallest size of disk I buy for USB drives is 1TB, if I fsck every time I plug one in I'll die of old age). > > So I think this is a particularly meaningless CVE, which is why I have > zero respect for people who try to make any kind of conclusion based > on CVE counts. I certainly don't plan to do anything about this. > As for your comments on CVE counting even the then head of CVE @mitre told people not to rely on CVE counting for vulnerability stats: https://media.blackhat.com/us-13/US-13-Martin-Buying-Into-The-Bias-Why-Vulnerability-Statistics-Suck-Slides.pdf As for your comment on not fixing this: I think fundamentally I should be able to plug a file system in and try to mount it with default/reasonable options and NOT have my system panic. File system handling code, like any code that handles user supplied data should be able to handle garbage gracefully and securely. At worst it should try to mount and go "derp, it's messed up, maybe fsck it?" > > - Ted > First of all, I would like to say I'm not a MIT genius nor a security engineer, just a chemistry student who were fuzzing his box on his free time. I'm not interested about getting CVE nor collecting them and I apologize if my mail have sound like that. I was just concerned about getting a better system where I can mount any file system without any crash/panic. But again I'm not a pro/engineer, and I know that I've got no credibility and it's certainly not with these kind of things I will get somes. Anyway, thanks for reading and all your work, now I'm gonna use this fucking DoS trick called "shutdown -h now" and stop reporting thing what I was thinking it was strange behaviour. Hugues.
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