oss-security January 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > oss-security archives
oss-security: Re: [oss-security] CVE-NONE kernel: PHONET signedn

Re: [oss-security] CVE-NONE kernel: PHONET signedness issue

From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Jan 06 2011 - 18:08:59 GMT
To: oss-security@lists.openwall.com

This is a slippery slope. I'm in favor of not having a CVE assigned
for this issue.

Otherwise, wouldn't we need a CVE for every vector that allows
transitioning from various capabilities to root? The capability
system may be poorly designed to allow such transitions, but I don't
think they represent unexpected behavior.


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael Gilbert
<michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:20:49 +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
>> re: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jan/39
>> Just in case someone tries to request a CVE name for this, I'm not
>> requesting for one because if you need CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability to
>> exploit this, you are already privileged.
> Right, but CAP_SYS_ADMIN != root, or at least it isn't meant to be. I
> mean if CAP_SYS_ADMIN == root, then one or the other doesn't need to
> exist. There is an exposure here, and for that it deserves a CVE
> identifier (of course in my opinion). See Brad Spengler's recent
> write-up [0]. There should be some effort toward making those 21 root
> equivalent capabilities discussed there non-equivalent.
> Best wishes,
> Mike
> [0] http://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2522