linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:00:45 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	vegard.nossum@...cle.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Known exploit detection

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> > I've never seen a comment inside the kernel sources which does point
>> > to a CVE, so I assume there already does exists some agreement about
>> > not doing so.
>>
>> We do occasionally put CVE numbers in the commit message, but
>> normally the commit comes first before we ask for a CVE number.
>
> The detection code will most likely come after the fix is applied.
>
> In that case the 'ID' of the message could also be the commit ID of
> the fix in question:
>
>         detect_exploit("[exploit for d8af4ce490e9: Fix syscall bug]")
>
> or so - no CVE needed, it's a free form ID that can contain anything
> descriptive about the bug the attacker attempted to exploit.

FWIW, I'd vastly prefer the CVE. The commit rapidly becomes
meaningless as things go into -stable, or manual backports. The CVE is
intended to be the single unique descriptor of a security problem.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/