Re: Year 2038 time set problem
It is not secure because it is not fixed for these issues: https://meltdownattack.com/ If you're CPU is not listed there (unlikely) or your use case does not need that much security( depending on your application) you can stay with 4.1. Fixing these vulnerabilities is a lot of work and no one will fix them for old OS. Tali Perry -----Original Message----- From: kernelnewbies-request@kernelnewbies.org [mailto:kernelnewbies-request@kernelnewbies.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:00 PM To: kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org Subject: Kernelnewbies Digest, Vol 88, Issue 1 Send Kernelnewbies mailing list submissions to kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.kernelnewbies.org... or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to kernelnewbies-request@kernelnewbies.org You can reach the person managing the list at kernelnewbies-owner@kernelnewbies.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Kernelnewbies digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Year 2038 time set problem (techi eth) 2. Re: Year 2038 time set problem (Greg KH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:49:05 +0530 From: techi eth <techieth@gmail.com> To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>, kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org Subject: Re: Year 2038 time set problem Message-ID: <CAJw2sSAJBKBR33sLdM285LbRfJTWrZwSDJQUnNzYju6QQTErqw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I am just trying to know why 4.1 kernel is insecure ? I have try to look but not able to get right answer. Could you please give me hint or link. I only see it is going to EOL by May 2018. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.kernel.org_category... Thanks On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 07:29:35PM +0530, techi eth wrote:
I am trying on 32 Bit micro board with ubifs file system with Linux Kernel 4.1.
And in your testing, did you find any problems?
Also note that the 4.1 kernel is very old and obsolete and insecure, and should NOT be used for any devices in the year 2038.
best of luck!
greg k-h
On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 06:59:46 +0000, tali.perry@nuvoton.com said:
It is not secure because it is not fixed for these issues: https://meltdownattack.com/
Note that saying "The CPU isn't vulnerable to Meltdown/Spectre, therefor the 4.1 kernel is OK" is *incredibly* wrong. For the record, since 4.1 came out, there's been at *least* a dozen security issues in the Linux kernel that have been a *lot* scarier for security professionals than the Meltdown/Spectre issue. That only got any news coverage because it was an actual hardware design flaw that was believed to be difficult to easily fix with software changes... For example, here's a partial list of known security issues fixed in *just* 4.14.8: (You want the full list, it's here: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-33/product_id-47/cvs... Looks like there were some 298 CVE numbers assigned to the Linux kernel after the 4.1 release date. Note that this doe *NOT* include fixed bugs that had security implications but were not assigned a CVE number) CVE-2017-17857 The check_stack_boundary function in kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging mishandling of invalid variable stack read operations. CVE-2017-17856 kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging the lack of stack-pointer alignment enforcement. CVE-2017-17855 kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging improper use of pointers in place of scalars. CVE-2017-17854 kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (integer overflow and memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging unrestricted integer values for pointer arithmetic. CVE-2017-17853 kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging incorrect BPF_RSH signed bounds calculations. CVE-2017-17852 kernel/bpf/verifier.c in the Linux kernel through 4.14.8 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging mishandling of 32-bit ALU ops. CVE-2017-17806 The HMAC implementation (crypto/hmac.c) in the Linux kernel before 4.14.8 does not validate that the underlying cryptographic hash algorithm is unkeyed, allowing a local attacker able to use the AF_ALG-based hash interface (CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_HASH) and the SHA-3 hash algorithm (CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA3) to cause a kernel stack buffer overflow by executing a crafted sequence of system calls that encounter a missing SHA-3 initialization. CVE-2017-17805 The Salsa20 encryption algorithm in the Linux kernel before 4.14.8 does not correctly handle zero-length inputs, allowing a local attacker able to use the AF_ALG-based skcipher interface (CONFIG_CRYPTO_USER_API_SKCIPHER) to cause a denial of service (uninitialized-memory free and kernel crash) or have unspecified other impact by executing a crafted sequence of system calls that use the blkcipher_walk API. Both the generic implementation (crypto/salsa20_generic.c) and x86 implementation (arch/x86/crypto/salsa20_glue.c) of Salsa20 were vulnerable.
On 03/04/2018 01:31 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Note that saying "The CPU isn't vulnerable to Meltdown/Spectre, therefor the 4.1 kernel is OK" is *incredibly* wrong.
For the record, since 4.1 came out, there's been at *least* a dozen security issues in the Linux kernel that have been a *lot* scarier for security professionals than the Meltdown/Spectre issue. That only got any news coverage because it was an actual hardware design flaw that was believed to be difficult to easily fix with software changes...
By this standard, it is necessary to update the kernel and reboot nearly every week. Is that right? -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
On 03/04/2018 01:31 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Note that saying "The CPU isn't vulnerable to Meltdown/Spectre, therefor the 4.1 kernel is OK" is *incredibly* wrong.
For the record, since 4.1 came out, there's been at *least* a dozen security issues in the Linux kernel that have been a *lot* scarier for security professionals than the Meltdown/Spectre issue. That only got any news coverage because it was an actual hardware design flaw that was believed to be difficult to easily fix with software changes...
By this standard, it is necessary to update the kernel and reboot nearly every week. Is that right?
That is correct. greg k-h
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 01:31:04PM -0500, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 06:59:46 +0000, tali.perry@nuvoton.com said:
It is not secure because it is not fixed for these issues: https://meltdownattack.com/
Note that saying "The CPU isn't vulnerable to Meltdown/Spectre, therefor the 4.1 kernel is OK" is *incredibly* wrong.
For the record, since 4.1 came out, there's been at *least* a dozen security issues in the Linux kernel that have been a *lot* scarier for security professionals than the Meltdown/Spectre issue. That only got any news coverage because it was an actual hardware design flaw that was believed to be difficult to easily fix with software changes...
To be fair, the next 4.1.y release to come out in a few days should have almost all of these issues resolved. So as long as you are keeping your systems up to date, all should be fine. But again, this kernel is going to be end-of-life in a few short weeks, so you had better be moving off of it already, or else you will be in trouble soon. thanks, greg k-h
On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:54:03 +0100, Greg KH said:
To be fair, the next 4.1.y release to come out in a few days should have almost all of these issues resolved. So as long as you are keeping your systems up to date, all should be fine.
So the next one will be the "So long, and thanks for all the fish" release of 4.1? :)
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 05:25:41PM -0500, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:54:03 +0100, Greg KH said:
To be fair, the next 4.1.y release to come out in a few days should have almost all of these issues resolved. So as long as you are keeping your systems up to date, all should be fine.
So the next one will be the "So long, and thanks for all the fish" release of 4.1? :)
Based on the size of it, that just might be the case :)
participants (4)
-
Greg KH -
Ruben Safir -
tali.perry@nuvoton.com -
valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu