4 ms·
I really wish these announcements would come with a short check to see if you're affected and some example code to test if you're vulnerable. Does anyone know
by abetusk 10y ago
I really wish these announcements would come with a short check to see if you're affected and some example code to test if you're vulnerable.
Does anyone know of a simple check to see if your server is affected?
- ajross 10y agoMSG_PEEK is a pretty obscure feature. I'm not personally aware of any commonly-run UDP code that actually uses it. You'll want to patch your kernel for sure, but unless you're running really crazy UDP servers, you're probably not immediately vulnerable.
- sigjuice 10y agoWhat about UDP clients? I don't see anything in the CVE to suggest a client vs server distinction in terms of (mis-)behavior.
- ajross 10y agoClients[1] are absolutely vulnerable too. But again, I'm not aware of any code that actually uses MSG_PEEK. [1] Really, there isn't any distinction at the kernel level between a UDP "client" and "server". It's the same set of syscalls being used on both sides, the difference is just who speaks first.
- cjbprime 10y ago> MSG_PEEK is a pretty obscure feature. I'm not personally aware of any commonly-run UDP code that actually uses it. You'll want to patch your kernel for sure, but unless you're running really crazy UDP servers, you're probably not immediately vulnerable. Or unless you have untrusted users on your machine, in which case they can run crazy UDP servers and escalate to root.
- ajross 10y agoYes, which is an important point: this serves as a local root escalation to any process which can open a UDP socket.