Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. So CopyFail CVE-2026-31431 is a thing.

So CopyFail CVE-2026-31431 is a thing.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
174 Posts 63 Posters 14 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • alcastronic@infosec.exchangeA alcastronic@infosec.exchange

    @wdormann The mitigation to block the modules on boot is good. There is one drawback tough - it requires a reboot. Something that may not be immediately feasible in every environment. On RHEL, this is, however, needed, as algif_aead is part of the kernel.

    wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
    wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
    wdormann@infosec.exchange
    wrote last edited by
    #62

    @alcastronic
    "Good" is a weird way to describe something that only works on some distributions.

    alcastronic@infosec.exchangeA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.luG gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.lu

      @wdormann did the initial CVE have a CVSS score and LPE written all over it?
      The kernel patch I saw only says "revert to previous way of doing things"

      wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
      wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
      wdormann@infosec.exchange
      wrote last edited by
      #63

      @gunstick
      The original (and current) CVE entry is merely the commit message.

      Which is unintelligible nonsense for anyone other than a Linux kernel developer.

      gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.luG 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • gregkh@social.kernel.orgG gregkh@social.kernel.org
        @deftpunk @joshbressers @wdormann @Viss no one did contact the kernel security team before they announced this. It was nice enough that they sent us a bug report and we got it fixed and pushed out to the latest stable kernel releases. That's all I can ever hope for.
        joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
        joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
        joshbressers@infosec.exchange
        wrote last edited by
        #64

        @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

        It's going to be a wild couple of years

        I do think you're right that the traditional disclosure model is gone forever

        But this one feels different. It was pretty obvious this was going to be a big one. Most CVEs are extremely lame and will never lead to anything

        But some are a big deal. And those can get drown in the great CVE garbage patch

        I have no idea what to do about those though, especially in open source

        wdormann@infosec.exchangeW di4na@hachyderm.ioD gregkh@social.kernel.orgG 3 Replies Last reply
        0
        • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

          @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

          It's going to be a wild couple of years

          I do think you're right that the traditional disclosure model is gone forever

          But this one feels different. It was pretty obvious this was going to be a big one. Most CVEs are extremely lame and will never lead to anything

          But some are a big deal. And those can get drown in the great CVE garbage patch

          I have no idea what to do about those though, especially in open source

          wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
          wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
          wdormann@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #65

          @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

          I get it that a lot of the world uses Linux.

          But what if...
          In an alternate universe, before publication of the flashy copy.fail writeup with public exploit code, the vulnerability was (for example) reported to the linux-distros mailing list, where the major linux distros are present. And they could hear why this particular vulnerability might want to be on their radar more than the rest of the sea of Linux kernel CVEs? (Universality, reliability, to-be-published exploit code, etc.)

          Would this alternate universe be:

          joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ gregkh@social.kernel.orgG 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

            @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

            I get it that a lot of the world uses Linux.

            But what if...
            In an alternate universe, before publication of the flashy copy.fail writeup with public exploit code, the vulnerability was (for example) reported to the linux-distros mailing list, where the major linux distros are present. And they could hear why this particular vulnerability might want to be on their radar more than the rest of the sea of Linux kernel CVEs? (Universality, reliability, to-be-published exploit code, etc.)

            Would this alternate universe be:

            joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
            joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
            joshbressers@infosec.exchange
            wrote last edited by
            #66

            @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

            Do I think this would have helped? I'm willing to say it probably wouldn't have hurt. But if the players would have asked for a long embargo, that could have been bad

            Not telling the kernel security team is super lame, that should be the minimum bar

            wdormann@infosec.exchangeW gregkh@social.kernel.orgG 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

              @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

              Do I think this would have helped? I'm willing to say it probably wouldn't have hurt. But if the players would have asked for a long embargo, that could have been bad

              Not telling the kernel security team is super lame, that should be the minimum bar

              wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
              wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
              wdormann@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #67

              @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

              The maximum embargo for said list is 14 days.

              Link Preview Image
              joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

                @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                The maximum embargo for said list is 14 days.

                Link Preview Image
                joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                joshbressers@infosec.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #68

                @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                I'm too far removed to know all the process now

                4 days is pretty good, yeah

                joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                  @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                  It's going to be a wild couple of years

                  I do think you're right that the traditional disclosure model is gone forever

                  But this one feels different. It was pretty obvious this was going to be a big one. Most CVEs are extremely lame and will never lead to anything

                  But some are a big deal. And those can get drown in the great CVE garbage patch

                  I have no idea what to do about those though, especially in open source

                  di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                  di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                  di4na@hachyderm.io
                  wrote last edited by
                  #69

                  @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Here is my take. Just publishing it and letting people catch up, without the "disclosure" is ok.

                  What is not ok is spreading misinformation and trying to make yourself look bigger than it is, yelling "patch now" when no patch exists, etc

                  Yeah we need to patch. We know. That is a job for our tooling to tell us. Not the people getting social and possibly marketing clout out of it.

                  joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ wdormann@infosec.exchangeW 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                    @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                    I'm too far removed to know all the process now

                    4 days is pretty good, yeah

                    joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                    joshbressers@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #70

                    @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                    Ugh, I misread your 14 as a 4 it seems

                    14 is still pretty good for most things, I won't argue about that

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • di4na@hachyderm.ioD di4na@hachyderm.io

                      @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Here is my take. Just publishing it and letting people catch up, without the "disclosure" is ok.

                      What is not ok is spreading misinformation and trying to make yourself look bigger than it is, yelling "patch now" when no patch exists, etc

                      Yeah we need to patch. We know. That is a job for our tooling to tell us. Not the people getting social and possibly marketing clout out of it.

                      joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      joshbressers@infosec.exchange
                      wrote last edited by
                      #71

                      @Di4na @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                      That's also a good point

                      It's extra frustrating when there's nothing us unwashed masses can do except wait

                      di4na@hachyderm.ioD 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                        @Di4na @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                        That's also a good point

                        It's extra frustrating when there's nothing us unwashed masses can do except wait

                        di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                        di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                        di4na@hachyderm.io
                        wrote last edited by
                        #72

                        @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss I am ok with waiting. That's the job. I am not ok with having to deal with all my management chain coming to me with no context one after the other asking me if we need to panic because they saw it in linkedin.

                        Or asking me which AI tool we need to buy to find and patch these automatically before they get found, because it is what the marketing in these tell us.

                        andrewnez@mastodon.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • di4na@hachyderm.ioD di4na@hachyderm.io

                          @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss I am ok with waiting. That's the job. I am not ok with having to deal with all my management chain coming to me with no context one after the other asking me if we need to panic because they saw it in linkedin.

                          Or asking me which AI tool we need to buy to find and patch these automatically before they get found, because it is what the marketing in these tell us.

                          andrewnez@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                          andrewnez@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                          andrewnez@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #73

                          @Di4na @joshbressers you need to buy them all!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                            @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                            It's going to be a wild couple of years

                            I do think you're right that the traditional disclosure model is gone forever

                            But this one feels different. It was pretty obvious this was going to be a big one. Most CVEs are extremely lame and will never lead to anything

                            But some are a big deal. And those can get drown in the great CVE garbage patch

                            I have no idea what to do about those though, especially in open source

                            gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                            gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                            gregkh@social.kernel.org
                            wrote last edited by
                            #74
                            @joshbressers @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Honestly, there was nothing "obvious" about this one being a "big one" compared to all of the bugs we get, and fix, on a daily/weekly basis in the kernel.

                            The ONLY thing different here from those bugfixes, was that someone made a web site, a simple reproducer, and announced it to the world. For 99.9% of the bugs we fix, that are reproducible like this, no one ever does that. That we know of...

                            In other words, this was just another Tuesday for us.
                            joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

                              @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                              I get it that a lot of the world uses Linux.

                              But what if...
                              In an alternate universe, before publication of the flashy copy.fail writeup with public exploit code, the vulnerability was (for example) reported to the linux-distros mailing list, where the major linux distros are present. And they could hear why this particular vulnerability might want to be on their radar more than the rest of the sea of Linux kernel CVEs? (Universality, reliability, to-be-published exploit code, etc.)

                              Would this alternate universe be:

                              gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                              gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                              gregkh@social.kernel.org
                              wrote last edited by
                              #75
                              @wdormann @joshbressers @deftpunk @Viss Not ALL of the distros are on linux-distros. So that is one thing. The other being that I don't care what happens on linux-distros, for many public reasons I refuse to deal with them anymore, and strongly encourage no one else to do so either.
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • di4na@hachyderm.ioD di4na@hachyderm.io

                                @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Here is my take. Just publishing it and letting people catch up, without the "disclosure" is ok.

                                What is not ok is spreading misinformation and trying to make yourself look bigger than it is, yelling "patch now" when no patch exists, etc

                                Yeah we need to patch. We know. That is a job for our tooling to tell us. Not the people getting social and possibly marketing clout out of it.

                                wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
                                wdormann@infosec.exchangeW This user is from outside of this forum
                                wdormann@infosec.exchange
                                wrote last edited by
                                #76

                                @Di4na @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                                Yes, the fact that the official advisory said Update your distribution's kernel package and Most major distributions are shipping the fix now when not a single distribution on the planet had an updated kernel package is evidence that the whole publication was a "Look at us!" vehicle, and everybody else on the planet be damned!

                                I can't say that it's a lie because I can't prove that they knew it was wrong.

                                Side wonder: Can something written by AI never be called a lie? 🤔

                                Link Preview Image
                                di4na@hachyderm.ioD 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • gregkh@social.kernel.orgG gregkh@social.kernel.org
                                  @joshbressers @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Honestly, there was nothing "obvious" about this one being a "big one" compared to all of the bugs we get, and fix, on a daily/weekly basis in the kernel.

                                  The ONLY thing different here from those bugfixes, was that someone made a web site, a simple reproducer, and announced it to the world. For 99.9% of the bugs we fix, that are reproducible like this, no one ever does that. That we know of...

                                  In other words, this was just another Tuesday for us.
                                  joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                  joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                  joshbressers@infosec.exchange
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #77

                                  @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                                  I do wonder sometimes how many of those CVEs you file could be a privilege escalation with a proper reproducer

                                  I'm sure it's not zero

                                  gregkh@social.kernel.orgG 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

                                    @Di4na @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                                    Yes, the fact that the official advisory said Update your distribution's kernel package and Most major distributions are shipping the fix now when not a single distribution on the planet had an updated kernel package is evidence that the whole publication was a "Look at us!" vehicle, and everybody else on the planet be damned!

                                    I can't say that it's a lie because I can't prove that they knew it was wrong.

                                    Side wonder: Can something written by AI never be called a lie? 🤔

                                    Link Preview Image
                                    di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    di4na@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    di4na@hachyderm.io
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #78

                                    @wdormann @joshbressers @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss mostly yes, which is also why I refuse to call it hallucinations or other anthropomorphizing statements... because it just aggregates words together that sounds like they work together.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                                      @gregkh @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss

                                      I do wonder sometimes how many of those CVEs you file could be a privilege escalation with a proper reproducer

                                      I'm sure it's not zero

                                      gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                                      gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                                      gregkh@social.kernel.org
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #79
                                      @joshbressers @deftpunk @wdormann @Viss Loads of them.
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ joshbressers@infosec.exchange

                                        @wdormann @gregkh @deftpunk @Viss

                                        Do I think this would have helped? I'm willing to say it probably wouldn't have hurt. But if the players would have asked for a long embargo, that could have been bad

                                        Not telling the kernel security team is super lame, that should be the minimum bar

                                        gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gregkh@social.kernel.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gregkh@social.kernel.org
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #80
                                        @joshbressers @wdormann @deftpunk @Viss What do you mean, they told us, we fixed it, it got in some stable kernels, and so our work on the security team was done. The CVE team assigned a CVE after a while, and even gave it a CVSS score.

                                        The fact that no distro popped up that used older kernel versions to do the real work to backport to older kernels seems to be everyone's major problem here. That is outside of the kernel security team's work entirely. So take it up with the distros that people are paying support for to do this for them?

                                        And yes, Debian was vulnerable, that is not good, and once it was noticed people worked hard and quickly to fix that. Not bad for a community-based distro that no one pays for in my opinion.
                                        joshbressers@infosec.exchangeJ penguin42@mastodon.org.ukP corsac@mastodon.socialC 3 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • wdormann@infosec.exchangeW wdormann@infosec.exchange

                                          @gunstick
                                          The original (and current) CVE entry is merely the commit message.

                                          Which is unintelligible nonsense for anyone other than a Linux kernel developer.

                                          gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.luG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.luG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          gunstick@mastodon.opencloud.lu
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #81

                                          @wdormann exactly.
                                          If it would say CVSS 7.3 more eyes would have looked (distro maintainers).
                                          If it says "exploit to root available" even more eyes would heve looked.
                                          Instead it is just technobabble to align the dilithium crystals, so nobody knows what it means.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups