Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:27:11 +0200
From: Gsunde Orangen <>
Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS

These two issues (CVE-2015-5366 and CVE-2015-5364) - commit in May 30th:

are fixed upstream in: 3.10.81, 3.12.44, 3.14.45, 3.18.17, 4.0.6, and

Does anyone know the reason why it wasn't (yet?) included in the
latest 3.4.x release (3.4.108 as of 2015-06-19)?


On 2015-07-06, 11:23 wrote:
>>> 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.

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.