Re: CVE Request: kernel - sock_diag: Fix out-of-bounds access to sock_diag_handlers[]

[Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:41:33AM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> But sorry, I won't disclose any further details, to not get into legal
> issues. In Germany it's quite hairy to do things like that :/
> But I can provide you my PoC in a private email -- for security evaluation.

This is not necessary since we don't use these "too recent" kernels, but
thanks for offering.

Here's a curious tweet:

<_argp> Since full-disclosure has been DDoSed to oblivion, here's huku's sock_diag 1 year-old exploit: 
http://pastebin.com/gwn1qErx

The pastebin has:

---
Who the fuck DDoS'ed full-disclosure? ;)

http://sysc.tl/mpougatsa_me_krema_kai_milko.tgz

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: huku <huku () grhack net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:18:38 +0200
Subject: CVE-2013-1763 local root exploit
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk

Greetings fly to Daphne Rosen, Gianna Michaels and Carmella Bing.

./hk
---

SHA-1:
c5904fdaea3e212bb84592e6e2ce3a640b14308c  mpougatsa_me_krema_kai_milko.tgz

Two of the files in the tarball have timestamps of 2012-07-14.  Of
course, this is no proof, but it does appear that the bug was privately
known since about July 2012.  The README says:

"A trimmed down version of an old exploit for the recently published
`sock_diag_handlers[]' vulnerability :("

The code contains:

  printf("Linux kernel >= 3.2 NETLINK_INET_DIAG 0day\n");
  printf("by huku <huku _at_ grhack _dot_ net>\n");

Is ">= 3.2" an error (should have been ">= 3.3" as your original posting
in here said)?  (The difference may be whether Ubuntu 12.04 is affected.)

Alexander