Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:02:13 -0400
From: Daniel Micay <>
To: Florian Weimer <>,
Cc: Roee Hay <>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel: stack buffer overflow with
 controlled payload in get_options() function

On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 14:52 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/30/2017 01:51 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > It's unreasonable to consider the kernel line untrusted. A CVE being
> > issued for one of these issues didn't make sense.
> It's a potential Secure Boot bypass, so it matters in some theoretical
> sense to some downstreams which carry those Secure Boot patches.
> (Although I have yet to see anyone to revoke a signature on a kernel
> with known root-to-ring-0 escalations, so the practical impact isn't
> large because an attack could still downgrade to a kernel with an
> exploitable vulnerability.)
> Florian

How is it a secure boot bypass? If the secure boot implementation
doesn't cover the kernel line it's already broken.

The provided example was treated as a verified boot vulnerability by
Google and fixed. It isn't supposed to be possible to set the kernel
line with a locked bootloader on Nexus/Pixel devices. It was a bug.

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.