Investigating vulnerabilities CVE-2013-0290 and CVE-2015-8787

cves/kernel/CVE-2013-0290.yml

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ curated_instructions: |
   This will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you
   fill everything out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work
   as finished unless curated is properly updated.
-curation_level: 0
+curation_level: 2
 reported_instructions: |
   What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
   security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that
   the CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.
 
   Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
-reported_date:
+reported_date: '2013-02-12'
 announced_instructions: |
   Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
   find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date.
@@ -55,7 +55,16 @@ description_instructions: |
 
   Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
   security
-description:
+description: |
+  Within the Linux kernel there was a net/core/datagram.c file, which stored 
+  generic datagram handling routines. One of these routines, 
+  The __skb_recv_datagram function, was made to lock a socket if a skb was
+  returned, requiring it be unlocked later with the use of another call. This 
+  function utilized an MSG_PEEK call to look at incoming data. However this 
+  call didn't properly handle the event if the incoming data was of 
+  zero-length. Since the MSG_PEEK flag was used to end a loop, the zero-length
+  data caused an infinite loop and could be used maliciously to result in a 
+  denial of service.
 bounty_instructions: |
   If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
   vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
@@ -75,12 +84,13 @@ bugs_instructions: |
     * Mentioned in mailing list discussions
     * References from NVD entry
     * Various other places
-bugs: []
+bugs: 
+- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911473
 fixes_instructions: |
   Please put the commit hash in "commit" below.
 
   This must be a git commit hash from the systemd source repo, a  40-character
-  hexademical string/
+  hexademical string.
 
   Place any notes you would like to make in the notes field.
 fixes:
@@ -89,9 +99,7 @@ fixes:
 - commit:
   note:
 - commit: 77c1090f94d1b0b5186fb13a1b71b47b1343f87f
-  note: |
-    Taken from NVD references list with Git commit. If you are
-    curating, please fact-check that this commit fixes the vulnerability and replace this comment with 'Manually confirmed'
+  note: 'Manually confirmed.'
 vcc_instructions: |
   The vulnerability-contributing commits.
 
@@ -106,15 +114,15 @@ vcc_instructions: |
   Place any notes you would like to make in the notes field.
 vccs:
 - commit: 3f518bf745cbd6007d8069100fb9cb09e960c872
-  note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
+  note: Discovered automatically by archeogit. Manually Confirmed.
 upvotes_instructions: |
   For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.
 
   For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
   upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
   interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
   upvotes score on your branch.
-upvotes:
+upvotes: 4
 unit_tested:
   question: |
     Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
@@ -129,10 +137,10 @@ unit_tested:
 
     For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
     adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
-  code:
-  code_answer:
-  fix:
-  fix_answer:
+  code: false
+  code_answer: 'The original code was not unit tested.'
+  fix: false
+  fix_answer: 'The fix was not unit tested.'
 discovered:
   question: |
     How was this vulnerability discovered?
@@ -147,10 +155,12 @@ discovered:
 
     If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please
     explain where you looked.
-  answer:
-  automated:
-  contest:
-  developer:
+  answer: |
+    The vulnerability was discovered by Tommi Rantala <[email protected]>
+    by testing the code using Trinity, a Linux system call fuzzer.
+  automated: false
+  contest: false
+  developer: true
 autodiscoverable:
   instructions: |
     Is it plausible that a fully automated tool could have discovered
@@ -167,8 +177,13 @@ autodiscoverable:
 
     The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
     why you come to that conclusion.
-  note:
-  answer:
+  note: |
+    The vulnerability was caused by the system waiting in an infinite loop on a
+    packet with no payload. The issue was discovered by a developer using 
+    Trinity, a Linux system call fuzzer. This demonstrates that it's not only
+    possible, but proven, that automated tools can be used to uncover this 
+    vulnerability.
+  answer: true
 specification:
   instructions: |
     Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example, the POSIX
@@ -184,8 +199,11 @@ specification:
 
     The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
     why you come to that conclusion.
-  note:
-  answer:
+  note: |
+    TCP specification violation, vulnerability in the socket buffers being 
+    passed into the system. When the SKB is of zero-length it should be skipped
+    but the missing check results in a DOS.
+  answer: true
 subsystem:
   question: |
     What subsystems was the mistake in? These are WITHIN linux kernel
@@ -219,7 +237,7 @@ subsystem:
     e.g.
         name: ["subsystemA", "subsystemB"] # ok
         name: subsystemA # also ok
-  name:
+  name: ["net", "core"]
   note:
 interesting_commits:
   question: |
@@ -235,8 +253,10 @@ interesting_commits:
       * Other commits that fixed a similar issue as this vulnerability
       * Anything else you find interesting.
   commits:
-  - commit:
-    note:
+  - commit: 3f518bf745cbd6007d8069100fb9cb09e960c872
+    note: |
+      The commit that first introduced the issue. It was made approximately one
+      year prior to the discovery and resolution of the vulnerability.
   - commit:
     note:
 i18n:
@@ -251,8 +271,10 @@ i18n:
     Answer should be true or false
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: |
+    The vulnerability had to do with an infinite loop caused by a packet,
+    being sent with no payload, which was not impacted by internationalization.
 sandbox:
   question: |
     Did this vulnerability violate a sandboxing feature that the system
@@ -266,8 +288,10 @@ sandbox:
     Answer should be true or false
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: |
+    The vulnerability resulted in a denial of service, and was not related to
+    access control.
 ipc:
   question: |
     Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
@@ -278,8 +302,10 @@ ipc:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: true
+  note: |
+    The vulnerability affected passing socket buffers within the system, which 
+    is a form of IPC.
 discussion:
   question: |
     Was there any discussion surrounding this?
@@ -305,9 +331,11 @@ discussion:
 
     Put any links to disagreements you found in the notes section, or any other
     comment you want to make.
-  discussed_as_security:
-  any_discussion:
-  note:
+  discussed_as_security: false
+  any_discussion: false
+  note: |
+    The issue was a trivial filtering of zero-length data and no discussion was 
+    had around it.
 vouch:
   question: |
     Was there any part of the fix that involved one person vouching for
@@ -320,8 +348,10 @@ vouch:
 
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: true
+  note: |
+    The commit fixing the issue was tested, reviewed, CCed, and signed off on 
+    by multiple developers.
 stacktrace:
   question: |
     Are there any stacktraces in the bug reports?
@@ -335,9 +365,11 @@ stacktrace:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  any_stacktraces:
-  stacktrace_with_fix:
-  note:
+  any_stacktraces: true
+  stacktrace_with_fix: true
+  note: |
+    Within the fix commit is a stacktrace, which includes the file where the
+    fix was made.
 forgotten_check:
   question: |
     Does the fix for the vulnerability involve adding a forgotten check?
@@ -356,8 +388,10 @@ forgotten_check:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: true
+  note: |
+    A flag check was forgotten to ensure zero-length data was not passed into 
+    the system, which caused the vulnerability.
 order_of_operations:
   question: |
     Does the fix for the vulnerability involve correcting an order of
@@ -369,8 +403,8 @@ order_of_operations:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: 'The fix did not involve a change in the order of operations.'
 lessons:
   question: |
     Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
@@ -386,38 +420,47 @@ lessons:
 
     If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
     free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
-  defense_in_depth:
-    applies:
-    note:
+  defense_in_depth: 
+    applies: true
+    note: |
+      Even if there is an expectation an error will be caught, it should still
+      be defended against elsewhere in the event those preventative measures fail. In
+      this case a check was forgotten to ensure zero-length data was not passed into 
+      the system, and once that data was passed there were no other defense measures 
+      in place to stop it from crashing the system.
   least_privilege:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   frameworks_are_optional:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   native_wrappers:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   distrust_input:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: true
+    note: |
+      This vulnerability was a result of zero-length data being sent to the 
+      system and not properly being handled. The input within a system should
+      not be so easily trusted and checks should be put in place to ensure all
+      possible inputs are handled without crashing the system.
   security_by_obscurity:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   serial_killer:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   environment_variables:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   secure_by_default:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   yagni:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
   complex_inputs:
-    applies:
+    applies: false
     note:
 mistakes:
   question: |
@@ -448,7 +491,10 @@ mistakes:
 
     Write a thoughtful entry here that people in the software engineering
     industry would find interesting.
-  answer:
+  answer: |
+    This vulnerability was caused by a lapse, as the incoming data was not 
+    properly considered and the case if that data were of zero-length was 
+    forgotten and not correctly handled.  
 CWE_instructions: |
   Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
   entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
@@ -466,12 +512,10 @@ CWE_instructions: |
     CWE: 123            # also ok
 CWE:
 - 20
-CWE_note: |
-  CWE as registered in the NVD. If you are curating, check that this
-  is correct and replace this comment with "Manually confirmed".
+CWE_note: 'Manually Confirmed.'
 nickname_instructions: |
   A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it.
   If the report mentions a nickname, use that.
   Must be under 30 characters. Optional.
-nickname:
-CVSS:
+nickname: 'Kernel Local DOS'
+CVSS: CVSS:2.0/AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C