Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

[Siddh Raman Pant]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 302 bytes --]

Is this a duplicate of CVE-2023-4881? It was rejected with the reason:

> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-4881
>
> ** REJECT ** CVE-2023-4881 was wrongly assigned to a bug that was
> deemed to be a non-security issue by the Linux kernel security team.

Thanks,
Siddh


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

[gregkh]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:48:29AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> Is this a duplicate of CVE-2023-4881? It was rejected with the reason:
> 
> > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-4881
> >
> > ** REJECT ** CVE-2023-4881 was wrongly assigned to a bug that was
> > deemed to be a non-security issue by the Linux kernel security team.

I don't know, where is the information about that older rejected issue?
If this isn't an issue, we will be glad to reject it.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

[Siddh Raman Pant]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 871 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 09 2024 at 10:49:59 +0530, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:48:29AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > Is this a duplicate of CVE-2023-4881? It was rejected with the reason:
> > 
> > > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-4881
> > > 
> > > ** REJECT ** CVE-2023-4881 was wrongly assigned to a bug that was
> > > deemed to be a non-security issue by the Linux kernel security team.
> 
> I don't know, where is the information about that older rejected issue?
> If this isn't an issue, we will be glad to reject it.

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4881 (see analysis
description where it just describes the issue).

Or just https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238312

I'm unable to find a rejection reason though, maybe that's on a private
mailing list.

Thanks,
Siddh

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

[gregkh]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 05:27:15AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09 2024 at 10:49:59 +0530, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:48:29AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > > Is this a duplicate of CVE-2023-4881? It was rejected with the reason:
> > > 
> > > > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2023-4881
> > > > 
> > > > ** REJECT ** CVE-2023-4881 was wrongly assigned to a bug that was
> > > > deemed to be a non-security issue by the Linux kernel security team.
> > 
> > I don't know, where is the information about that older rejected issue?
> > If this isn't an issue, we will be glad to reject it.
> 
> https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4881 (see analysis
> description where it just describes the issue).
> 
> Or just https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238312
> 
> I'm unable to find a rejection reason though, maybe that's on a private
> mailing list.

Looks like Red Hat created it and then rejected it, you will have to
talk about this with them.  But then later ZDI asked me to assign a CVE
for it, and I did assuming that they knew what they were talking about.
I shouldn't have assumed that :(

I don't know what to do here, sorry.  If you don't think this is an
issue, great, I'll be glad to reject it but we should say at least why
we don't think so here in this thread, right?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2023-52628: netfilter: nftables: exthdr: fix 4-byte stack OOB write

[Siddh Raman Pant]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 09 2024 at 15:39:43 +0530, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> Looks like Red Hat created it and then rejected it, you will have to
> talk about this with them.  But then later ZDI asked me to assign a CVE
> for it, and I did assuming that they knew what they were talking about.
> I shouldn't have assumed that :(
> 
> I don't know what to do here, sorry.  If you don't think this is an
> issue, great, I'll be glad to reject it but we should say at least why
> we don't think so here in this thread, right?

Thank you for the clarification!

I thought the "Linux kernel security team" is referring to an upstream
group, so I asked about it because it seemed off.

Anyways, best to have this up instead of not.

Thanks,
Siddh

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]