Количество 85
Количество 85

SUSE-SU-2025:02848-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:03272-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:03301-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

CVE-2025-38499
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

CVE-2025-38499
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

CVE-2025-38499
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.
CVE-2025-38499
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: c ...

SUSE-SU-2025:03382-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:03290-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:02849-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

CVE-2025-38495
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

CVE-2025-38495
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

CVE-2025-38495
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.
CVE-2025-38495
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: H ...
GHSA-cc85-5h45-qhc8
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.
ELSA-2025-20551
ELSA-2025-20551: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)
GHSA-42gx-8xq5-j4pf
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

SUSE-SU-2025:02846-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:03023-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:02996-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel
Уязвимостей на страницу
Уязвимость | CVSS | EPSS | Опубликовано | |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:02848-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | около 1 месяца назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:03272-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 14 дней назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:03301-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 9 дней назад | ||
![]() | CVE-2025-38499 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above. | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | |
![]() | CVE-2025-38499 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above. | CVSS3: 7 | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад |
![]() | CVE-2025-38499 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above. | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | |
CVE-2025-38499 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: c ... | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:03382-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 дней назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:03290-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 10 дней назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:02849-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | около 1 месяца назад | ||
![]() | CVE-2025-38495 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7. | 0% Низкий | 2 месяца назад | |
![]() | CVE-2025-38495 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7. | CVSS3: 7 | 0% Низкий | 2 месяца назад |
![]() | CVE-2025-38495 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7. | 0% Низкий | 2 месяца назад | |
CVE-2025-38495 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: H ... | 0% Низкий | 2 месяца назад | ||
GHSA-cc85-5h45-qhc8 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above. | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
ELSA-2025-20551 ELSA-2025-20551: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT) | 24 дня назад | |||
GHSA-42gx-8xq5-j4pf In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7. | 0% Низкий | 2 месяца назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:02846-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | около 1 месяца назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:03023-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | около 1 месяца назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:02996-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | около 1 месяца назад |
Уязвимостей на страницу