‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Several vulnerabilities have been discovered in the Linux kernel

576 points · 408 comments · luispa

  1. john_strinlai · · focus · HN ↗
    note that _any_ bugfix is assigned a cve, which makes for big numbers.

    >“Due to the layer at which the Linux kernel is in a system, almost any bug might be exploitable to compromise the security of the kernel… Because of this, the CVE assignment team is overly cautious and assign CVE numbers to any bugfix that they identify.”

    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.kernel.org&#x2F;process&#x2F;cve.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.kernel.org&#x2F;process&#x2F;cve.html

    &quot;number of cves&quot; is a useless metric, especially when it comes to the kernel.

    1. mbreese · · focus · HN ↗
      &gt; note that _any_ bugfix is assigned a cve

      I do find it interesting though, that in the interest of transparency, every bugfix gets a CVE. Which ends up being a huge number… which will ultimately yield a more insecure environment as we’re getting conditioned to ignore&#x2F;discount CVEs by the volume.

      Over-reporting in this case seems to risk being counterproductive.

      1. socializer · · focus · HN ↗
        It&#x27;s not very interesting. Linus, and by extension the Linux kernel, long had a dismissive attitude toward security research. This is basically a childish swing from one extreme (nothing gets a CVE) to another (everything gets a CVE).

        Kernel development is well-funded, both via grants and by direct employment at big tech companies, and if they wanted to properly triage and annotate vulnerabilities, and provide reasonable assessments of what is or isn&#x27;t likely to be a security risk, they absolutely could. They almost certainly could go to Google and say &quot;we need two people full-time on your payroll for this&quot; and they would get it.

        I don&#x27;t want to dunk on them too much because they&#x27;re generally doing God&#x27;s work, but these absolutist security stances are not worth being taken seriously.

        It&#x27;s basically saying that they can&#x27;t possibly provide a valuable service for 99.999% of the install base because there might a hypothetical person out there using Linux in a really weird way. If Microsoft tried to make an argument like that, they&#x27;d get crucified.

        1. vlovich123 · · focus · HN ↗
          The counterpoint is that by putting CVEs on bugs that are more easily exploitable provides a roadmap for attackers. Of course, in the current LLM age that&#x27;s probably a moot point, but that could be the reason for this.
          1. seb1204 · · focus · HN ↗
            security by obscurity?
            1. cannonpalms · · focus · HN ↗
              Obscurity is a valuable layer of defense-in-depth
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.