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 09:54:07 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net
Subject: Re: stable-security kernel updates

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?

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.

Thanks,
Sasha