netdev - Re: Responsible Disclosure

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]

Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:31:01 +0100
From:	"D. S. Ljungmark" <spider@...eit.se>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	ljungmark@...io.se, "security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
	security <security@...roid.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Responsible Disclosure

On tis, 2015-03-24 at 19:45 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:25:39AM +0100, D. S. Ljungmark wrote:
> > On mån, 2015-03-09 at 06:49 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:45:08AM +0100, D. S. Ljungmark wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >   We have developed a somewhat disturbing DoS attack (due to a logic
> > > > error) that affects _at least_ :
> > > > 
> > > >   Windows 8.1 (32bit) 
> > > >   Mac OS X  10.10
> > > >   FreeBSD 10.1
> > > >   Linux 3.x (samples between 3.0 => 3.18 tested)
> > > >   Android  (Lollipop) 
> > > > 
> > > > Now, we have a problem with reporting this, in that it doesn't only
> > > > apply to a single OS/implementation. 
> > > >   
> > > > The mitigation is fairly simple ( in lines of code ) and we have a patch
> > > > for Linux already. 
> > > > 
> > > > There is a working proof of concept, and the cause might be attributed
> > > > to a somewhat naive interpretation / concept in an IETF RFC, that has
> > > > since been amended, but not fixed in implementations.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am not going to dump this as a bombshell by dropping it on Slashdot or
> > > > similar and watching the fallout as many of the worlds shared hosting
> > > > services drop offline from malicious usage. 
> > > > 
> > > > On the other hand, I'm not going to give certain parts prior knowledge
> > > > with example PoC just because they feel privileged and want to delay
> > > > this for unreasonable amounts of time.  We're all adults here, and know
> > > > how to communicate this.
> > > > 
> > > > Who can organize a coherent Review / Analysis / Patch / Disclosure of
> > > > this? Where do I start? Who do I contact? 
> > > > 
> > > > We're trying to do the right thing here, but there isn't much documented
> > > > on how to report cross-platform bugs that has the possibility of causing
> > > > larger breakage.
> > > 
> > > The linux-distros mailing list is your best bet.  They replaced the old
> > > vendor-sec mailing list.  They can help you out here with notifying
> > > everyone involved and generating a fix properly.
> > > 
> > > Hope this helps,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > 
> > Following up with the patch, got an okay from CERT to post it.
> > 
> > Signed-Off-By: D.S. Ljungmark <ljungmark@...io.se>
> 
> What patch?  I didn't see anything here :(
> 
> Did you sent it to netdev@...r.kernel.org?
> 
> If not, can you please do so, that way the kernel networking developers
> can see it and apply it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

This patch prevents a link-local DoS against ipv6. 


To exploit, push an RA packet without any routing information, but with
the hop limit reduced to 1.

//D.S. Ljungmark







View attachment "linux-3.18-ipv6-hop_limit.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (897 bytes)

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)