linux-kernel - Re: Who is looking at CVEs to prevent them?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b27c7950-873a-f0e9-d7b4-322bb941a11f@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 12:42:03 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc:     Masami Ichikawa <masami.ichikawa@...aclelinux.com>,
        cip-dev <cip-dev@...ts.cip-project.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lwn@....net, smatch@....kernel.org
Subject: Re: Who is looking at CVEs to prevent them?

On 3/7/23 12:00, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2023 12:51:14 +0300 Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:14:53AM +0900, Masami Ichikawa wrote:
>> > CVE-2023-0210: ksmbd: check nt_len to be at least CIFS_ENCPWD_SIZE in
>> > ksmbd_decode_ntlmssp_auth_blob
>> > 
>> > 5.15, 6.0, and 6.1 were fixed.
>> > 
>> > Fixed status
>> > mainline: [797805d81baa814f76cf7bdab35f86408a79d707]
>> > stable/5.15: [e32f867b37da7902685c9a106bef819506aa1a92]
>> > stable/6.0: [1e7ed525c60d8d51daf2700777071cd0dfb6f807]
>> > stable/6.1: [5e7d97dbae25ab4cb0ac1b1b98aebc4915689a86]
>> 
>> Sorry, I have kind of hijacked the cip-dev email list...  I use these
>> lists to figure out where we are failing.
>> 
>> I created a static checker warning for this bug.  I also wrote a blog
>> stepping through the process:
>> https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2023/03/07/triaging-security-bugs/
>> 
>> If anyone wants to review the warnings, just email me and I can send
>> them to you.  I Cc'd LWN because I was going to post the warnings but I
>> chickened out because that didn't feel like responsible disclosure. The
> 
> Given the syzbot reports only in the past three years for instance, the
> chickenout sounds a bit over reaction.
> 
>> instructions for how to find these yourself are kind of right there in
>> the blog so it's not too hard to generate these results yourself...  I
>> don't really have enough time to review static checker warnings anymore
>> but I don't know who wants to do that job now.
> 
> If no more than three warnings you will post a week after filtering, feel
> free to add me to your Cc list, better with the leading [triage smatch
> warning] on the subject line the same way as the syzbot report.
> 
> Thanks
> Hillf

Why do you keep adding linux-mm to the Cc list of random threads that are
not about MM?