Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:08:59 -0500 From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CVE-NONE kernel: PHONET signedness issue This is a slippery slope. I'm in favor of not having a CVE assigned for this issue. Otherwise, wouldn't we need a CVE for every vector that allows transitioning from various capabilities to root? The capability system may be poorly designed to allow such transitions, but I don't think they represent unexpected behavior. -Dan On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@...il.com> wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:20:49 +0800, Eugene Teo wrote: >> re: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jan/39 >> >> Just in case someone tries to request a CVE name for this, I'm not >> requesting for one because if you need CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability to >> exploit this, you are already privileged. > > Right, but CAP_SYS_ADMIN != root, or at least it isn't meant to be. I > mean if CAP_SYS_ADMIN == root, then one or the other doesn't need to > exist. There is an exposure here, and for that it deserves a CVE > identifier (of course in my opinion). See Brad Spengler's recent > write-up . There should be some effort toward making those 21 root > equivalent capabilities discussed there non-equivalent. > > Best wishes, > Mike > >  http://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2522 >
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.