Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:26:53 +1000 From: Wade Mealing <wmealing@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Linux kernel: CVE-2018-14619 kernel: crash (possible privesc) in kernel crypto subsystem. > Are we seriously now going to be assigning cves to everything that > syzbot finds? It sure is, lets hope it drives up the quality of the code and ensures that higher quality code is accepted upstream. A man can dream right ? You've had questions about why I bring up flaws regarding older code, such as that tty (http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q2/560) exploit so I'm glad to have this chance to spend some time explaining you why I work in this way. > If not, why this specific patch? What makes it special from the hundreds > of other syzbot finds that have been fixed (and not fixed yet)? This > seems like an odd choice, given: This flaw does crash the system, its easy for the user to do so, and it did crash our build-servers during testing. So, its not necessarily _this patch_ its patches that either affect Red Hat as a product or customers demand. I don't get a choice in what is a security flaw and what is not, local denial of service is something that admins care about. If it comes across my plate and it fits the definition of a flaw then it is something that I need to consider. It would be easier for me if when patches were applied that the developer would go through the security-flaw process of getting a CVE number, posting to the relevant security list, etc, maybe oss-security wont Unfortunately its not fun, its not glorious and I end up explaining why I'm fixing older code to you, all of these justifications I'm sure you're aware of. Having those who create the patches do some of the leg-work would make my job easier and correctly reflect the state of the developers security posture, changing other peoples process and asking them to do additional work of classifying a flaw/problem is likely not going to happen, which is why we are in the state we are in. > If RHEL is not exposed, why does Red Hat care about this? Who cares > about it? Anyone running a 4.14.y kernel has had this fixed for a very > long time ago, and anyone not running a 4.14.y kernel is not affected. The kernel-alt is an alternative kernel based on 4.14 which Red Hat ships for certain architectures (See https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.5_release_notes/index#chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.5_Release_Notes-Architectures ). Its a very similar (but not identical) build config to standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux based on 4.14. While not many customers do run this kernel it is something that Red Hat ships. While the flaw/problem no longer affects your kernel, that is okay! I often investigate upstream bugs that don't affect the the Red Hat kernels and move on with my life. These older releases though, is something that some users do care about. I think it is worse if I silently ignore a local DOS. Upstream maintainers may have no obligation or interest in doing the legwork for requesting and classifying this but it is my job. > Again, I'm really confused why this was chosen for a CVE here. > Care to explain it a bit better? I'd love to see upstream classify and get CVE's for their patches, we both gotta work within reality though ;) The obvious technical reason is because it allows a local user to panic the system, when a known security fix goes into a product it requires a CVE as part of our process. > Is it because you have to have a CVE for every > bugfix in the RHEL kernel-alt package (something that I would love to > see happen for various other reasons...) CVE's are assigned for bugs that have an security impact (DOS, information leak or privesc). Not every bug is a security bug but it is clear that some bugs have a larger financial or stability concern than others. I can only work on issues that I'm made aware of, this is one of them. Previous responses to my mails show that you dislike posts made by me about older code (beware as more are coming!, redirect to /dev/null if its too upsetting), there is nothing that I can do about that. The responsibility that I have is to customers and not to kernel maintainers. The day that the kernel stops having these classes of flaws is the day that I won't have a job and you wont need to worry. I'd be happy to talk about this further, my job requirements however are not flexible. Thanks, Wade Mealing
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.