mailing list archives
Re: CVE Request: kernel - sock_diag: Fix out-of-bounds access to sock_diag_handlers
From: Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:12:08 +0400
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:41:33AM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
But sorry, I won't disclose any further details, to not get into legal
issues. In Germany it's quite hairy to do things like that :/
But I can provide you my PoC in a private email -- for security evaluation.
This is not necessary since we don't use these "too recent" kernels, but
thanks for offering.
Here's a curious tweet:
<_argp> Since full-disclosure has been DDoSed to oblivion, here's huku's sock_diag 1 year-old exploit:
The pastebin has:
Who the fuck DDoS'ed full-disclosure? ;)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: huku <huku () grhack net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:18:38 +0200
Subject: CVE-2013-1763 local root exploit
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Greetings fly to Daphne Rosen, Gianna Michaels and Carmella Bing.
Two of the files in the tarball have timestamps of 2012-07-14. Of
course, this is no proof, but it does appear that the bug was privately
known since about July 2012. The README says:
"A trimmed down version of an old exploit for the recently published
`sock_diag_handlers' vulnerability :("
The code contains:
printf("Linux kernel >= 3.2 NETLINK_INET_DIAG 0day\n");
printf("by huku <huku _at_ grhack _dot_ net>\n");
Is ">= 3.2" an error (should have been ">= 3.3" as your original posting
in here said)? (The difference may be whether Ubuntu 12.04 is affected.)
Re: CVE Request: kernel - sock_diag: Fix out-of-bounds access to sock_diag_handlers Marcus Meissner (Feb 25)