linux-kernel - Re: stable-security kernel updates

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:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:13:07 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net
Subject: Re: stable-security kernel updates

On 04/21/2016, 03:54 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/21/2016 08:39 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:05:41PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 04/21/2016, 01:59 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>>>>> (CVE-2016-2085) 613317b EVM: Use crypto_memneq() for digest comparisons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does not exist in the CVE database/is not confirmed yet AFAICS.
>>>>
>>>> And now I am looking at the patch and I remember why I threw it away.
>>>> crypto_memneq is not in 3.12 yet and I was not keen enough to backport  it.
>> Which brings up the question, Sasha, why did you think these CVEs were
>> relevant for 3.12?  What were you basing that list on?
> 
> The EVM one? Because there exists a vulnerability in the 3.12 EVM code which
> allows an attacker to essentially circumvent integrity checks, and the reason
> it wasn't fixed was because a memory comparison helper function wasn't backported?

Because sometimes the breakage risk is much higher than fixing a bug.
This one was evaluated for 3.12.55 and not included at that time for
that very reason.

Now, given it it upstream for much longer, I reevaluated that and put
that into the 3.12 tree.

> For the other CVEs I've listed? I looked at what went in to 3.14 but not 3.12,
> and audited the resulting list to confirm that the vulnerability existed on 3.12.

Where exactly is 0185604 and 096fe9e contained in 3.14? I actually don't
see them in any of Greg's stable tree.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs