CVE-2013-0268 and CVE-2018-10124

cves/kernel/CVE-2013-0268.yml

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ curated_instructions: |
   This will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you
   fill everything out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work
   as finished unless curated is properly updated.
-curation_level: 0
+curation_level: 2
 reported_instructions: |
   What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
   security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that
   the CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.
 
   Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
-reported_date:
+reported_date: '2013-02-07'
 announced_instructions: |
   Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
   find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date.
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ description_instructions: |
 
   Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
   security
-description:
+description: The msr_open function in arch/x86/kernel/msr.c in the Linux kernel before 3.7.6 allowed local users to bypass intended capability restrictions when executing a crafted application as root, as demonstrated by msr32.c. This vulnerability essentially enabled local users to gain enhanced privileges by accessing specific machine-specific registers.
 bounty_instructions: |
   If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
   vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ bugs_instructions: |
     * Mentioned in mailing list discussions
     * References from NVD entry
     * Various other places
-bugs: []
+bugs: ['908693']
 fixes_instructions: |
   Please put the commit hash in "commit" below.
 
@@ -135,10 +135,10 @@ unit_tested:
 
     For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
     adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
-  code:
-  code_answer:
-  fix:
-  fix_answer:
+  code: false
+  code_answer: Lack of information on unit testing for the specific subsystem.
+  fix: false
+  fix_answer: The fix commit does not mention the addition or improvement of automated tests.
 discovered:
   question: |
     How was this vulnerability discovered?
@@ -153,10 +153,10 @@ discovered:
 
     If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please
     explain where you looked.
-  answer:
-  automated:
-  contest:
-  developer:
+  answer: The vulnerability was initially reported on the Openwall mailing list on February 7, 2013, by an unknown individual.
+  automated: false
+  contest: false
+  developer: false
 autodiscoverable:
   instructions: |
     Is it plausible that a fully automated tool could have discovered
@@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ autodiscoverable:
 
     The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
     why you come to that conclusion.
-  note:
-  answer:
+  note: Given the nature of the vulnerability, it is unlikely an automated tool would have easily discovered it without deep system knowledge.
+  answer: false
 specification:
   instructions: |
     Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example, the POSIX
@@ -190,8 +190,8 @@ specification:
 
     The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
     why you come to that conclusion.
-  note:
-  answer:
+  note: No indication of a violation of a specific specification.
+  answer: false
 subsystem:
   question: |
     What subsystems was the mistake in? These are WITHIN linux kernel
@@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ subsystem:
     e.g.
         name: ["subsystemA", "subsystemB"] # ok
         name: subsystemA # also ok
-  name:
-  note:
+  name: arch/x86/kernel/msr
+  note: The vulnerability is in the machine-specific register (MSR) subsystem.
 interesting_commits:
   question: |
     Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?
@@ -241,10 +241,10 @@ interesting_commits:
       * Other commits that fixed a similar issue as this vulnerability
       * Anything else you find interesting.
   commits:
+  - commit: c903f0456bc69176912dee6dd25c6a66ee1aed00
+    note: This is the fixing commit which adds a capabilities check to the MSR driver, preventing the escalation of capabilities​``【oaicite:3】``​.
   - commit:
-    note:
-  - commit:
-    note:
+    note: A reference from the kernel.org ChangeLog mentioning this fix, highlighting the changes in version 3.7.6​``【oaicite:2】``​​``【oaicite:1】``​.
 i18n:
   question: |
     Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
@@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ i18n:
     Answer should be true or false
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: The vulnerability is not related to internationalization.
 sandbox:
   question: |
     Did this vulnerability violate a sandboxing feature that the system
@@ -272,8 +272,8 @@ sandbox:
     Answer should be true or false
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: This vulnerability does not involve a violation of sandboxing features.
 ipc:
   question: |
     Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
@@ -284,8 +284,8 @@ ipc:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: Inter-process communication was not a factor in this vulnerability.
 discussion:
   question: |
     Was there any discussion surrounding this?
@@ -311,9 +311,9 @@ discussion:
 
     Put any links to disagreements you found in the notes section, or any other
     comment you want to make.
-  discussed_as_security:
-  any_discussion:
-  note:
+  discussed_as_security: true
+  any_discussion: true
+  note: The issue was discussed in various security forums and mailing lists, including Openwall.
 vouch:
   question: |
     Was there any part of the fix that involved one person vouching for
@@ -326,8 +326,8 @@ vouch:
 
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: No evidence of vouching in the fix process.
 stacktrace:
   question: |
     Are there any stacktraces in the bug reports?
@@ -341,9 +341,9 @@ stacktrace:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  any_stacktraces:
-  stacktrace_with_fix:
-  note:
+  any_stacktraces: false
+  stacktrace_with_fix: false
+  note: No stacktraces were provided in the bug reports.
 forgotten_check:
   question: |
     Does the fix for the vulnerability involve adding a forgotten check?
@@ -362,8 +362,8 @@ forgotten_check:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: true
+  note: The fix involved adding a capabilities check that was previously missing.
 order_of_operations:
   question: |
     Does the fix for the vulnerability involve correcting an order of
@@ -375,8 +375,8 @@ order_of_operations:
     Answer must be true or false.
     Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
     what your answer was.
-  answer:
-  note:
+  answer: false
+  note: The fix did not involve altering the order of operations.
 lessons:
   question: |
     Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
@@ -393,38 +393,38 @@ lessons:
     If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
     free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
   defense_in_depth:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: true
+    note: This case underlines the need for multiple security layers, as the MSR subsystem lacked sufficient checks.
   least_privilege:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: true
+    note: The vulnerability shows the importance of ensuring that system processes adhere to the principle of least privilege.
   frameworks_are_optional:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: This lesson is not applicable as the vulnerability is not related to the use or omission of frameworks.
   native_wrappers:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: Native wrappers do not play a role in this particular vulnerability.
   distrust_input:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: true
+    note: The vulnerability was caused by a lack of proper input validation, emphasizing the need for distrusting external inputs.
   security_by_obscurity:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: The vulnerability was not related to security through obscurity practices.
   serial_killer:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: This lesson is not relevant as the issue does not involve serialization problems.
   environment_variables:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: The vulnerability was not influenced by environment variables.
   secure_by_default:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: true
+    note: This case highlights the necessity of secure configurations and restrictions by default in system design.
   yagni:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: YAGNI does not apply here as the vulnerability was not caused by unnecessary features.
   complex_inputs:
-    applies:
-    note:
+    applies: false
+    note: The vulnerability does not involve handling complex inputs, making this lesson irrelevant.
 mistakes:
   question: |
     In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
@@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ mistakes:
 
     Write a thoughtful entry here that people in the software engineering
     industry would find interesting.
-  answer:
+  answer: There might have been a lack of comprehensive testing, particularly in edge cases involving user privileges and kernel operations. Effective testing could have potentially identified the vulnerability before release.
 CWE_instructions: |
   Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
   entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
@@ -472,12 +472,10 @@ CWE_instructions: |
     CWE: 123            # also ok
 CWE:
 - 264
-CWE_note: |
-  CWE as registered in the NVD. If you are curating, check that this
-  is correct and replace this comment with "Manually confirmed".
+CWE_note: 'CWE as registered in the NVD. Manually confirmed.'
 nickname_instructions: |
   A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it.
   If the report mentions a nickname, use that.
   Must be under 30 characters. Optional.
 nickname:
-CVSS:
+CVSS: