добавить настройку fs.inotify.max_user_instances

Уязвимость UEFI-загрузчика shim, существующая из-за непринятия мер по нейтрализации специальных элементов, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

A flaw was found in Shim when an error happened while creating a new ESL variable. If Shim fails to create the new variable, it tries to print an error message to the user; however, the number of parameters used by the logging function doesn't match the format string used by it, leading to a crash under certain circumstances.

A remote code execution vulnerability was found in Shim. The Shim boot support trusts attacker-controlled values when parsing an HTTP response. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a specific malicious HTTP request, leading to a completely controlled out-of-bounds write primitive and complete system compromise. This flaw is only exploitable during the early boot phase, an attacker needs to perform a Man-in-the-Middle or compromise the boot server to be able to exploit this vulnerability successfully.

A buffer overflow was found in Shim in the 32-bit system. The overflow happens due to an addition operation involving a user-controlled value parsed from the PE binary being used by Shim. This value is further used for memory allocation operations, leading to a heap-based buffer overflow. This flaw causes memory corruption and can lead to a crash or data integrity issues during the boot phase.

An out-of-bounds read flaw was found in Shim due to the lack of proper boundary verification during the load of a PE binary. This flaw allows an attacker to load a crafted PE binary, triggering the issue and crashing Shim, resulting in a denial of service.

An out-of-bounds read flaw was found in Shim when it tried to validate the SBAT information. This issue may expose sensitive data during the system's boot phase.

A flaw was found in the MZ binary format in Shim. An out-of-bounds read may occur, leading to a crash or possible exposure of sensitive data during the system's boot phase.

DoS-атака против CDROM при запуске xmms

Сбой digikam при поиске действий

runc is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers on Linux according to the OCI specification. In runc 1.1.11 and earlier, due to an internal file descriptor leak, an attacker could cause a newly-spawned container process (from runc exec) to have a working directory in the host filesystem namespace, allowing for a container escape by giving access to the host filesystem ("attack 2"). The same attack could be used by a malicious image to allow a container process to gain access to the host filesystem through runc run ("attack 1"). Variants of attacks 1 and 2 could be also be used to overwrite semi-arbitrary host binaries, allowing for complete container escapes ("attack 3a" and "attack 3b"). runc 1.1.12 includes patches for this issue.

Постоянный значок «Загрузка» на панели мониторинга

Уязвимость функции DH_generate_key() библиотеки OpenSSL, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817), DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters. Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q. An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate(). Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the "-pubcheck" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.

Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications running on PowerPC CPU based platforms if the CPU provides vector instructions. Impact summary: If an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences. The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL for PowerPC CPUs restores the contents of vector registers in a different order than they are saved. Thus the contents of some of these vector registers are corrupted when returning to the caller. The vulnerable code is used only on newer PowerPC processors supporting the PowerISA 2.07 instructions. The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However unless the compiler uses the vector registers for storing pointers, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service. The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3. If this cipher is enabled on the server a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used. This implies that TLS server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue.