Re: CVE Request: UDP checksum DoS

[cve-assign () mitre org]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> > 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.

Use CVE-2015-5366.

- -- 
CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority
M/S M300
202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA
[ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmkgoAAoJEKllVAevmvmsCWkH/1xhstkTg/oWb95ua9Jvr6rR
hLq8qVNZoel+2k5/73YIkxOAi5UvNPn3/sb75p2vggTIeXhdLK6hJw8nUTRItyUR
UhAWrwISpnOxHGKuVOjPoH4e9ujZLNXxDopZW0+eIJLh+Wb3ek00ohJhMNF4Cp5J
9vi759xuM/yNsOqkXE7daIWEHSgkjw1jTs43Hh4L6vV8ixuFN/mNM+u+ljiEGO1/
/SMDUS3ByZKJ+B7odl4fa9s4EB7BO8x0dvZlWeWaGLNShq30nYItpGGJ799lVS81
3JGqrUeqgUumyuy72bd0NtAH1IViOnkHV9MBBFB/G9Whl959h0xdrOiGJh3dxAw=
=GBxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----