3 ms·
I was going to say "surely this is against a specific implementation" and would offer that linking to the Microsoft page would convey both pieces of information
by mdaniel 4y ago
I was going to say "surely this is against a specific implementation" and would offer that linking to the Microsoft page would convey both pieces of information: the original link and to whom it applies: https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-23415 https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-20...
tl;dr
> An attacker could send a low-level protocol error containing a fragmented IP packet inside another ICMP packet in its header to the target machine. To trigger the vulnerable code path, an application on the target must be bound to a raw socket.
- standardly 4y agoDo you have any more insight as to how that might work? I'm not really grokking it, I work in networking and wonder if this is going to be a big patching effort soon. It's already a constant battle for us to have ICMP traffic allowed everywhere.
- mdaniel 4y agoAccording to https://blog.talosintelligence.com/microsoft-patch-tuesday-for-march-2023-snort-rules-and-prominent-vulnerabilities/ https://blog.talosintelligence.com/microsoft-patch-tuesday-f... it's an out of bounds write, which I interpret to mean it is luck of the draw about the "RCE" part, but almost certain about the Availability component of the CVSS score While TFA didn't mention the Patch Tuesday part, the Talos blog said the fix is included in the March release, along with some other venomous looking ones
- gnu8 4y agoWasn’t Steve Gibson trying to tell us that raw sockets were the end of the world more than 20 years ago? Maybe he is finally right.