linux-kernel - Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <2024070948-helpful-departure-a468@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:09:43 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@...cle.com>
Cc: "cve@...nel.org" <cve@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr:
 fix 4-byte stack OOB write

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 05:27:15AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09 2024 at 10:49:59 +0530, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:48:29AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > > Is this a duplicate of CVE-2023-4881? It was rejected with the reason:
> > > 
> > > > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-4881
> > > > 
> > > > ** REJECT ** CVE-2023-4881 was wrongly assigned to a bug that was
> > > > deemed to be a non-security issue by the Linux kernel security team.
> > 
> > I don't know, where is the information about that older rejected issue?
> > If this isn't an issue, we will be glad to reject it.
> 
> https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4881 (see analysis
> description where it just describes the issue).
> 
> Or just https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238312
> 
> I'm unable to find a rejection reason though, maybe that's on a private
> mailing list.

Looks like Red Hat created it and then rejected it, you will have to
talk about this with them.  But then later ZDI asked me to assign a CVE
for it, and I did assuming that they knew what they were talking about.
I shouldn't have assumed that :(

I don't know what to do here, sorry.  If you don't think this is an
issue, great, I'll be glad to reject it but we should say at least why
we don't think so here in this thread, right?

thanks,

greg k-h