Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:57:45 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <>
To: oss-security <>
Cc: Vladis Dronov <>
Subject: Re: CVE-2018-1130: Linux kernel: dccp: a null pointer
 dereference in net/dccp/output.c:dccp_write_xmit

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Andrey Konovalov <>

> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Vladis Dronov <> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > A null pointer dereference in dccp_write_xmit() function in
> net/dccp/output.c
> > in the Linux kernel before v4.16-rc7 allows a local user to cause a
> denial of
> > service by a number of certain crafted system calls.

So the classic CVE statement for this is "does it cross/violate a trust
boundary". Yeah I know, not super helpful.

In general when I look at something and need to decide whether or not it
deserves/needs a CVE the fundamentals are:

1) Can an attacker use this vulnerability to gain access, additional
privileges, basically is there an impact to
Confidentiality/Availability/Integrity? This is really two tests: is there
an impact, and is there a way for the attacker to trigger or exploit it?
That's a CVE.

2) Does the software/system make a specific security claim that they then
fail to meet? E.g. "we include a firewall that blocks access to everything
inbound except for port 22", if they were to then also allow port 80,
that'd be a CVE.

So for the syzbot stuff mostly what you need to determine is:

a) is there a security related impact?
b) can an attacker trigger it?

If both are yes, then a CVE is warranted.

> >
> > References:
> >
> >
> b39d21ba94
> >
> >
> >
> > An upstream patch:
> >
> >
> linux.git/commit/?id=67f93df79aeefc3add4e4b31a752600f834236e2
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | Product Security Engineer
> Hi Vladis,
> I've been wondering, how do you choose which bugs you request CVEs
> for? Syzbot reported a few hundreds of them over the last few months
> and a decent fraction of them looks scarier than a null pointer
> dereference.
> Thanks!


Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact:

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