Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:27:34 +0000 From: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com> To: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>, "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com> CC: "xen-announce@...ts.xen.org" <xen-announce@...ts.xen.org>, "xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, "xen-users@...ts.xen.org" <xen-users@...ts.xen.org>, Xen.org security team <security-team-members@....org> Subject: Re: Xen Security Advisory 407 v1 (CVE-2022-23816,CVE-2022-23825,CVE-2022-29900) - Retbleed - arbitrary speculative code execution with return instructions On 12/07/2022 20:34, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 09:27:07PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 04:36:10PM +0000, Xen.org security team wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> Xen Security Advisory CVE-2022-23816,CVE-2022-23825,CVE-2022-29900 / XSA-407 >>> >>> Retbleed - arbitrary speculative code execution with return instructions >>> >>> ISSUE DESCRIPTION >>> ================= >>> >>> Researchers at ETH Zurich have discovered Retbleed, allowing for >>> arbitrary speculative execution in a victim context. >>> >>> For more details, see: >>> https://comsec.ethz.ch/retbleed >>> >>> ETH Zurich have allocated CVE-2022-29900 for AMD and CVE-2022-29901 for >>> Intel. >>> >>> Despite the similar preconditions, these are very different >>> microarchitectural behaviours between vendors. >>> >>> On AMD CPUs, Retbleed is one specific instance of a more general >>> microarchitectural behaviour called Branch Type Confusion. AMD have >>> assigned CVE-2022-23816 (Retbleed) and CVE-2022-23825 (Branch Type >>> Confusion). >>> >>> For more details, see: >>> https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-1037 >> Is it confirmed that AMD is not using CVE-2022-29900? The above >> amd-sb-1037 references as well both CVE-2022-23825 (Branch Type >> Confusion) and CVE-2022-29900 (RETbleed), so I assume they agreed to >> use CVE-2022-29900 for retbleed? >> >> So should the Xen advisory as well use CVE-2022-23825,CVE-2022-29900 >> and CVE-2022-29901? > Nevermind, I missunderstood the wording and the advisory just mentions > all the related CVEs correctly and made a thinko. It might turn out > that CVE-2022-23816 will not be used, but then the title would read > only as > > Xen Security Advisory CVE-2022-23825,CVE-2022-29900 / XSA-407 > > So please disregard the question above. /sigh AMD changed the CVE in the bulletin between the final draft, and what went public. CVE-2022-23816 has been referenced by multiple other vendors too, so is definitely out in the world. Hopefully MITRE will close out one of CVE-2022-23816 and CVE-2022-29900 as a dup of the other. For now, I think the least confusing option is to keep both referenced. ~Andrew
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.