netdev - Re: [PATCH V2] netfilter: h323: avoid potential attack

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, 28 Jan 2016 15:29:59 +0100
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.or,
	Zhouyi Zhou <yizhouzhou@....ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] netfilter: h323: avoid potential attack

Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com> wrote:
> Thanks Eric for your review and advice.
> 
> I think hackers chould build a malicious h323 packet to overflow
> the pointer p which will panic during the memcpy(addr, p, len)
> 
> For example, he may fabricate a very large taddr->ipAddress.ip;

Can you be more specific?

h323_buffer is backend storage for skb_header_pointer, i.e.
this will error out early when we ask for more data than is available in
packet.

I don't understand how this could overflow anything.
Even assuming 64k packet we'd still have enough room in h323_buffer
for an ipv6 address, no? (we skip the l3/l4 header when extracting
packet payload).