A second remote hole for OpenBSD
Posted Mar 15, 2007 0:32 UTC (Thu) by ajross
In reply to: A second remote hole for OpenBSD
Parent article: A second remote hole for OpenBSD
I know I promised not to post again. But now you're starting to
post explicit misinformation. Please be careful to get things
Maybe you amisinterpreted the argument I was making? The point
here is to judge the Linux kernel by the same standard as OpenBSD uses
for their (IMHO) ridiculous slogan, not to enumerate other (obviously
important) kinds of flaws, and not for the purpose of flaming about
platforms, but as an exercise to show use useless a metric "Only N
Problems with SMBFS that can possibly lead to remote code execution.
From the description: "Multiple vulnerabilities have been reported
in the Linux Kernel, which potentially can be exploited by malicious,
local users to ...". How exactly does this qualify as a
"remote hole?" OpenBSD's metric is specifically about
network-exploitable vulnerabilities, not local root exploits.
Bluetooth vunerability leading to root access. Trivially exploitable.
This is another local vulnerabilty. It's clearly not a "remote
hole". You can't compromise a system remotely via bluetooth; the bug
is that you can achieve root locally by exploing a bug with the
"xdr_xcode_array2()" error allows remote access via NFSACL.
This was never verified as anything but a DoS, so by OpenBSD's own
standards (silly ones, of course, which is my whole point) it doesn't
count. The bug in the OpenBSD IPv6 code was not termed a remote hole
until someone wrote an exploit, so clearly it's not fair to tag Linux
with a different standard.
I'm sorry, but every one of those vulnerabilities would be rejected
by the OpenBSD team as part of their "Only N holes" metric. Are you
starting to agree with me now that it's perhaps not as informative a
slogan as you might have originally thought?
to post comments)