Поиск уязвимостей

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: v ...

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.

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.

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.

clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: c ...

Security update for the Linux Kernel

ALT-PU-2025-16509: package `kernel-image-6.12` update to version 6.12.41-alt1

ALT-PU-2025-16464: package `kernel-image-rt` update to version 6.12.41-alt1

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

ALT-PU-2026-1529: package `kernel-image-pine` update to version 6.12.66-alt1

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: Do not allow binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY It is possible for a vsock to autobind to VMADDR_PORT_ANY. This can cause a use-after-free when a connection is made to the bound socket. The socket returned by accept() also has port VMADDR_PORT_ANY but is not on the list of unbound sockets. Binding it will result in an extra refcount decrement similar to the one fixed in fcdd2242c023 (vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction). Modify the check in __vsock_bind_connectible() to also prevent binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY.

Уязвимость компонента vsock ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю оказать воздействие на конфиденциальность, целостность и доступность защищаемой информации

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.