Live data from Hacker News

For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

openwall.com

151–160 of 578 posts

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#151
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely not true that viable commercial vulnerability labs need to "accept the norms around responsible disclosure". There are no such norms. "Responsible disclosure" is an Orwellian term cooked up between @Stake and Microsoft and other large vendors to coerce researchers into synchronizing with vendor release schedules. It was fantastically successful at that, and it's worth pushing back on at every opportu…

Microsoft's policy is: "if you contact us with a vulnerability, you automatically agree to the terms of our responsible disclosure policy", which includes waiting 30 days after patch was created, and says nothing about how long that process takes. There is actually no way to give them a friendly heads up, and then do your own thing. The only way not to be bound is by not sending them any notification at all...

I wonder if "if you contact us... you automatically agree" stands in court. That's just ridiculous.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#153
post #93

For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer. Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this. It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope th…

Without taking a position on the disclosure mechanics: any hosting provider hacked with this was already playing to lose. It is not OK to run competing untrusted tenant workloads under a single shared kernel. Kernel LPEs are not rare. This was a particularly simple and portable one, but the underlying raw capability is a CNE commodity.

> Kernel LPEs are not rare. This was a particularly simple and portable one, but the underlying raw capability is a CNE commodity.

I absolutely 100% agree with this and I'm glad to see somebody saying it. Any system that is one LPE away from being compromised is already insecure.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#154

For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer. Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this. It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope th…

The title on this post was changed to imply that only the Gentoo developer was left out - which I could believe.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#155

For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer. Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this. It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope th…

> Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this.

None? Because nobody* does hosting using Linux users as a security boundary. It's not the 90s.

* Standard HN disclaimer for people that think that some retro shell box with 10 users disproves "nobody": nobody does not literally mean exactly 0 people in this context.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#156
post #82

For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer. Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this. It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope th…

> It was extremely irresponsible As a user and admin I disagree. Makes one appreciate what a masterful bit of lexical-engineering “Responsible” Disclosure is, kinda like “Secure” ( from me, not for me) Boot — “Responsible” Disclosure is 100% about reputation-management for the various corporation/foundation middleman entities sitting between me and my computer. Those groups don't care that my individual computer is v…

With immediate disclosure the provider can decide to shut down while it is fixed. Or to notify users and make it their decision. Or to be prepared with a diversified infra and switch over to a non-vulnerable path. e.g, BSDs are not affected by CopyFail

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#157

For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer. Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this. It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope th…

i have no problem with disclosing a vulnerability 30 days after its patched in the thing you reported to. (in fact, for those unaware, this is the same policy that google's project zero uses: "90+30" https://projectzero.google/vulnerability-disclosure-policy.h...)

the real problem is:

>It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers.

the reporter should not be the one responsible for reporting separately to every single downstream of the thing they found a vuln in.

what should be happening, as you allude to, is a communication channel between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. they are in a much better position to coordinate and communicate with the maintainers than random reporters are.

the minute the patch landed in the kernel, a notification should have gone out from the kernel team to a curated list of distro security folk that communicated the importance of the patch, and that the public disclosure would be in 30 days.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#158
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft's policy is: "if you contact us with a vulnerability, you automatically agree to the terms of our responsible disclosure policy", which includes waiting 30 days after patch was created, and says nothing about how long that process takes. There is actually no way to give them a friendly heads up, and then do your own thing. The only way not to be bound is by not sending them any notification at all...

I wonder if "if you contact us... you automatically agree" stands in court. That's just ridiculous.

Reader, it does not.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#159
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since the reporter is explicitly asked not to notify the distro teams first. https://docs.kernel.org/process/security-bugs.html ```As such, the kernel security team strongly recommends that as a reporter of a potential security issue you DO NOT contact the “linux-distros” mailing list UNTIL a fix is accepted by the affected code’s maintainers and you have read the distros wiki page above and you fully unde…

The kernel team has been at odds with the CVE process and the oss-security community about this stuff for many, many years now. It's a big part of why the kernel team established a CNA and started flooding CVE notifications; they don't believe that security problems are different than non-security problems, and refuse to establish norms or policies based on the idea that they are.

It's such a bizarre viewpoint. I wonder when Linus will see sense.

IMO it's pretty obviously not a view that they seriously hold, it's just one of those technical justifications people come up with to avoid admitting something they don't want to admit - in this case that Linux has a poor security track record.

Re: For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions

#160
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can accept (and welcome) disclosure before there are patches. But publishing a working exploit together with the disclosure before patches are available is really really irresponsible, maybe even criminal. And no, the proposed mitigations don't help with half of the distributions out there...

> maybe even criminal What’s your theory here? What crime?

Exploits are sold and used as weapons, sometimes even weapons of war. Which in many places is criminal, except under very restrictive circumstances.

Also, all kinds of aiding and abetting.

Post reply on HN