Home page logo
/

oss-sec logo oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: CVE Requests (maybe): Linux kernel: various info leaks, some NULL ptr derefs
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:13:37 -0700

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/05/2013 01:52 PM, Mathias Krause wrote:
Hi Kurt,

I don't care much about info leaks beyond merely fixing them. But 
Alexander asked me to request a CVE ID for the recent crypto fix
of mine and as I did quite a few of such fixes in the recent past,
I'll just list them all here. The information might be a bit scarce
for a CVE ID request but as I don't expect any CVE IDs anyway, I
didn't wanted to do too much unnecessary work. ;)

9a5467b crypto: user - fix info leaks in report API

This is quite a big info leak of heap, stack and .text memory. No 
crypto material, though. Also, as the crypto user API is protected
by capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN), it's not as critical as is might sound
on the first sight. It affects all versions from the introduction
of the crypto user API -- that is v3.2 - v3.8.

Please use CVE-2013-1825 for this issue.


Bundling the following into a single CVE:

Older info leak fixes follow. All of them ended up in v3.6 and
were backported to the stable/longterm kernels at the time:

ecd7918 xfrm_user: ensure user supplied esn replay window is valid 
What: Leaks up to ~3.5kb heap memory. Was protected by 
capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN) at the time.

1f86840 xfrm_user: fix info leak in copy_to_user_tmpl() What: Minor
leak of stack memory. Was protected by capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN) at
the time.

7b78983 xfrm_user: fix info leak in copy_to_user_policy() What:
Minor leak of heap memory. Was protected by capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)
at the time.

f778a63 xfrm_user: fix info leak in copy_to_user_state() What:
Minor leak of heap memory. Was protected by capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)
at the time.

4c87308 xfrm_user: fix info leak in copy_to_user_auth() What: Leak
of heap memory. Was protected by capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN) at the
time.

43da5f2 net: fix info leak in compat dev_ifconf() What: Minor leak
of stack memory.

2d8a041 ipvs: fix info leak in getsockopt(IP_VS_SO_GET_TIMEOUT) 
What: Minor leak of stack memory.

7b07f8e dccp: fix info leak via
getsockopt(DCCP_SOCKOPT_CCID_TX_INFO) What: Minor leak of stack
memory.

3592aae llc: fix info leak via getsockname() What: Major leak of
stack memory (up to 128 bytes).

04d4fbc l2tp: fix info leak via getsockname() What: Minor leak of
stack memory.

792039c Bluetooth: L2CAP - Fix info leak via getsockname() What:
Minor leak of stack memory.

9344a97 Bluetooth: RFCOMM - Fix info leak via getsockname() What:
Minor leak of stack memory.

f9432c5 Bluetooth: RFCOMM - Fix info leak in
ioctl(RFCOMMGETDEVLIST) What: Minor leak of heap memory.

9ad2de4 Bluetooth: RFCOMM - Fix info leak in
getsockopt(BT_SECURITY) What: Minor leak of stack memory.

3f68ba0 Bluetooth: HCI - Fix info leak via getsockname() What:
Minor leak of stack memory.

e15ca9a Bluetooth: HCI - Fix info leak in getsockopt(HCI_FILTER) 
What: Minor leak of stack memory.

3c0c5cf atm: fix info leak via getsockname() What: Minor leak of
stack memory.

e862f1a atm: fix info leak in getsockopt(SO_ATMPVC) What: Minor
leak of stack memory.

a117dac net/tun: fix ioctl() based info leaks What: Leak of 36
bytes of stack memory.

0143fc5 udf: avoid info leak on export What: Minor leak of heap
memory.

fe685aa isofs: avoid info leak on export What: Minor leak of heap
memory.

Please use CVE-2012-6138 for these issues.

Now do follow a few NULL ptr derefs ending up in privilege
escalation if a user is able to map page 0 or probably a DoS
otherwise. Also those have all been fixed in v3.6 and backported to
the corresponding stable/longterm kernels at the time:

864745d xfrm_user: return error pointer instead of NULL What: Wrong
return of NULL leads to wrong path in calling function leading to
NULL pointer deref of skb.

Please use CVE-2013-1826 for this issue.

276bdb8 dccp: check ccid before dereferencing What: Missing NULL
pointer check leads to NULL function pointer.

Please use CVE-2013-1827 for this issue.


That's all. Enough, I guess ;)

While we are at it: Do we care about getting CVE IDs for info
leaks? If so, all of them or only for the ones with leaks above a
certain threshold (>= 16 bytes, e.g.)?

Regards, Mathias

- -- 
Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT)
PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
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=bmBV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault