Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS

[Ben Hutchings <benh () debian org>]

On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 22:48 -0400, cve-assign () mitre org wrote:
> > https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/605854034260426753
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=beb39db59d14990e401e235faf66a6b9b31240b0
>
> > remote DoS via flood of UDP packets with invalid checksums
>
> It appears that you are primarily asking for a CVE ID for the issue
> involving the absence of a cond_resched call. Use CVE-2015-5364.
>
> However, the presence of "return -EAGAIN" may also have been a
> security problem in some realistic circumstances. For example, maybe
> there's an attacker who can't transmit a flood with invalid checksums,
> but can sometimes inject one packet with an invalid checksum. The
> goal of this attacker isn't to cause a system hang; the goal is to
> cause an EPOLLET epoll application to stop reading for an indefinitely
> long period of time. This scenario can't also be covered by
> CVE-2015-5364. Is it better to have no CVE ID at all, e.g., is
> udp_recvmsg/udpv6_recvmsg simply not intended to defend against this
> scenario?

It seems reasonable to assign a second CVE ID to that issue.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings - Debian developer, member of Linux kernel and LTS teams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part