Re: CVE-2017-5715
Hi, On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:38 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > > On 3/25/22 19:19, Leandro Cunha wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:19 AM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > >> > >> On 3/25/22 03:24, Leandro Cunha wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > > On 3/23/22 22:43, Leandro Cunha wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:33 PM Georgi Naplatanov > > wrote: > >> > >> On 3/23/22 18:35, piorunz wrote: > >>> On 23/03/2022 15:41, Leandro Cunha wrote: > >>> > Please, take into consideration what is in the link and you can > consult through > it about CVE: > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2017-5715 > >>> > >>> Leandro, > >>> I've been on this website before I posted with > >>> spectre-meltdown-checker > >>> results. I have vulnerable status just like author of this topic. I am > >>> on intel-microcode 3.20210608.2, and by the look of it, this bug > >>> supposed to be fixed in: > >>> > >>> "intel-microcode: Some microcode updates to partially adress > >>> CVE-2017-5715 included in 3.20171215.1 > >>> Further updates in 3.20180312.1" > >>> > >>> So my version of microcode is 3-4 years newer than that. > >>> > >>> Is it microcode problem, or spectre-meltdown-checker displaying wrong > >>> information, or something else entirely? > >>> > >> > >> I want to mention that on the same computer with kernel Debian > >> 5.10.92-2 > >> > >> spectre-meltdown-checker > >> > >> reports that the system is not vulnerable to CVE-2017-5715 > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Georgi > >> > > > > This script is reporting an already patched CVE as vulnerable. > > > Are you sure this behavior on 5.10.103-1 is not some kind of regression? > What is the evidence that vulnerability is still fixed? > > > Kind regards > Georgi > > >>> > >>> When replying to your email I was aware of the script issue that was > >>> reporting > >>> several already resolved CVEs as unresolved. As Salvatore sent the issue > >>> link. > >>> But it seems to me that this problem was solved 7 days ago, it would be > >>> interesting if there was an update or a backport to stable. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Leandro, > >> > >> I also think that an update would be nice. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Georgi > >> > > > > I applied a patch from upstream and repackaged it from unstable. > > And this CVE is displayed as resolved. > > > > Thank you, Leandro! > > I guess that the patch will appear in Debian stable (11.4), right? > > Kind regards > Georgi > This update must comply with the link below. I only did a test here. It is up to the maintainers to analyze this. I already see it as something necessary to be corrected. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions -- Cheers, Leandro Cunha Software Engineer and Debian Contributor -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- mQINBF/gQ8gBEADHVKgoWsUWNGVvR6sMhBPUdBUEH+QALpr1QYXhetBfRwaY0HWN pKgejHdxKO8H+kIhRMoh89CCKg3hAJ9LmOOTXkX7U5/Cya/zRMKk5zBD3rKIaugh 0XYT15Nz1jwL7TIDG25yPSloDtVgVXTep0ZzKsNYJjb4OAqa88cvUEJEhhqrldlR gpNbkixEh5ituO8pMShEBWqLs3yt4Hr1VFWnTIm4dl/JLBHpexzubDOw/mKCTpNd A1JGHTvce1wtJ2fMzCVzhEjd5pyjLZV/o8hVw2/ON/yXvpJuz0lV/hiW0M+cDcas sKftErtsZpRy3wwXdkBcJt6soYuqfCHwgMfL2iC6mPviE8xWAHMOmhdC3wDskZpb RcLfH5IMYajJAGRO/GCMcKKbq7WkEOeloivtg64xBlYuJf9aOcHKP/8R3EObiNp7 ubQAJtV3pEGD4mx1mhutFxDHB+CfnxE3dWvxZSV9y1n4UOzkDJ3kDx5Ee0MbRvJD w6aXKc6dhYREgh7hLDcMFz+3LcBiZDLxI3g+SHe3Bl61vdsnPno+0HhCzvB+fL4S eoy7Myfiunz9BrB2HPN+wNCT0YgV+Kv8QoDGzBwos5H1vUJSY4t59w6xoXAYUsAm hjAM8s+rUtG40mcUWePd8kZtgE9IV1eQ+Qt8/SNpSdRnUunmIGl3JjHvEwARAQAB tClMZWFuZHJvIEN1bmhhIDxsZWFuZHJvY3VuaGEwMTZAZ21haWwuY29tPokCTgQT AQoAOBYhBLT5oBCvKN3HzFEPK8LZ4zKUW9A8BQJf4EPIAhsDBQsJCAcCBhUKCQgL AgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEMLZ4zKUW9A8FjAQAKWYqiLpLUD+DLB+NSy3DI3rf9z3 k0vE7TLaEjdEM5CQWN+j4vBqMnAckdcARvSWPndTjp8K+mtFF4PyfhNbS64z/a7L F3DdhmX73n7LKFG8Ow9NZwcrkmPwH5WcP7mXTh6R+6/+OSL/K85NB8MLlxQTJOni julVax9JEZjwBaP2HLCu53Zq9gZcvJlXoAoTHyTxKdp8Mh8V+Qit26E78o9c6SQD Dq9eyMRG8hYCRfreDjKceRkYHjECySlk+VoI1ssVs07Dqvxg6qSyP4RnW+1+W74C s0yIyuC/eRJpMAf1PBQEOOrVcTfRfpN+go955t21yIAvT58vqotTM5eaqXYIQn/y sC4lThZai/ZBZHxl5Mbv42WkkYdjisLQOCALIMBpj5nq4oh2C+kvMupcuBKfERgV dguU51MzfQktKb6d5y777zYnDaFMQDD2IfiD/C7ln5A9LP/L54ixlA3uRmWx/yAx /m+Zusws98j4Eq/jw5T54XW655m6lMCTE9WXLJkgxrRcEonHSllbgRSsToEmWq0Z doxcnpagHdcGQzW+cu2VOGi1da73ZFmrn+ptJgc8cW2suO06IeArOi0TzIg7e65j Xp2DbJCpFrfzEuBb1u71WvB8V2MkAfJZx/uZJPCA936B4HT8YGPEMzlQRIHI2Y9C +DloyzlBLTS1EMKuuQINBF/gQ8gBEAC47o9u1Wm9jZ6RC+lfxEDEvVS7MmI5VzSy q04rFttWwbKix13pc65aDlk47LxWrb84N3Gnf1E/OTsLTXqC7u5JZ7YJkC6CsPbo D1sQkfCiJCFCTgf7dydEVt8ujS/Uu1kz86ufdRwaMRcvBZAORGdB58LEsLB65WN4 hLRYF7xvcxu6t7FGrIYereaxUAWLA2B/ZnCEdOY94w7s0uaPjHdf4lfHebuZ7T08 iG5ACDvKBjgaFArGfdNY
Re: CVE-2017-5715
On 3/25/22 19:19, Leandro Cunha wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:19 AM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: >> >> On 3/25/22 03:24, Leandro Cunha wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: On 3/23/22 22:43, Leandro Cunha wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:33 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: >> >> On 3/23/22 18:35, piorunz wrote: >>> On 23/03/2022 15:41, Leandro Cunha wrote: >>> Please, take into consideration what is in the link and you can consult through it about CVE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2017-5715 >>> >>> Leandro, >>> I've been on this website before I posted with spectre-meltdown-checker >>> results. I have vulnerable status just like author of this topic. I am >>> on intel-microcode 3.20210608.2, and by the look of it, this bug >>> supposed to be fixed in: >>> >>> "intel-microcode: Some microcode updates to partially adress >>> CVE-2017-5715 included in 3.20171215.1 >>> Further updates in 3.20180312.1" >>> >>> So my version of microcode is 3-4 years newer than that. >>> >>> Is it microcode problem, or spectre-meltdown-checker displaying wrong >>> information, or something else entirely? >>> >> >> I want to mention that on the same computer with kernel Debian 5.10.92-2 >> >> spectre-meltdown-checker >> >> reports that the system is not vulnerable to CVE-2017-5715 >> >> Kind regards >> Georgi >> > > This script is reporting an already patched CVE as vulnerable. Are you sure this behavior on 5.10.103-1 is not some kind of regression? What is the evidence that vulnerability is still fixed? Kind regards Georgi >>> >>> When replying to your email I was aware of the script issue that was >>> reporting >>> several already resolved CVEs as unresolved. As Salvatore sent the issue >>> link. >>> But it seems to me that this problem was solved 7 days ago, it would be >>> interesting if there was an update or a backport to stable. >>> >> >> Hi Leandro, >> >> I also think that an update would be nice. >> >> Kind regards >> Georgi >> > > I applied a patch from upstream and repackaged it from unstable. > And this CVE is displayed as resolved. > Thank you, Leandro! I guess that the patch will appear in Debian stable (11.4), right? Kind regards Georgi
Re: CVE-2017-5715
Hi, On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:19 AM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > > On 3/25/22 03:24, Leandro Cunha wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > >> > >> On 3/23/22 22:43, Leandro Cunha wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:33 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > > On 3/23/22 18:35, piorunz wrote: > > On 23/03/2022 15:41, Leandro Cunha wrote: > > > >> Please, take into consideration what is in the link and you can > >> consult through > >> it about CVE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2017-5715 > > > > Leandro, > > I've been on this website before I posted with spectre-meltdown-checker > > results. I have vulnerable status just like author of this topic. I am > > on intel-microcode 3.20210608.2, and by the look of it, this bug > > supposed to be fixed in: > > > > "intel-microcode: Some microcode updates to partially adress > > CVE-2017-5715 included in 3.20171215.1 > > Further updates in 3.20180312.1" > > > > So my version of microcode is 3-4 years newer than that. > > > > Is it microcode problem, or spectre-meltdown-checker displaying wrong > > information, or something else entirely? > > > > I want to mention that on the same computer with kernel Debian 5.10.92-2 > > spectre-meltdown-checker > > reports that the system is not vulnerable to CVE-2017-5715 > > Kind regards > Georgi > > >>> > >>> This script is reporting an already patched CVE as vulnerable. > >> > >> > >> Are you sure this behavior on 5.10.103-1 is not some kind of regression? > >> What is the evidence that vulnerability is still fixed? > >> > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Georgi > >> > > > > When replying to your email I was aware of the script issue that was > > reporting > > several already resolved CVEs as unresolved. As Salvatore sent the issue > > link. > > But it seems to me that this problem was solved 7 days ago, it would be > > interesting if there was an update or a backport to stable. > > > > Hi Leandro, > > I also think that an update would be nice. > > Kind regards > Georgi > I applied a patch from upstream and repackaged it from unstable. And this CVE is displayed as resolved. -- Cheers, Leandro Cunha Software Engineer and Debian Contributor -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- mQINBF/gQ8gBEADHVKgoWsUWNGVvR6sMhBPUdBUEH+QALpr1QYXhetBfRwaY0HWN pKgejHdxKO8H+kIhRMoh89CCKg3hAJ9LmOOTXkX7U5/Cya/zRMKk5zBD3rKIaugh 0XYT15Nz1jwL7TIDG25yPSloDtVgVXTep0ZzKsNYJjb4OAqa88cvUEJEhhqrldlR gpNbkixEh5ituO8pMShEBWqLs3yt4Hr1VFWnTIm4dl/JLBHpexzubDOw/mKCTpNd A1JGHTvce1wtJ2fMzCVzhEjd5pyjLZV/o8hVw2/ON/yXvpJuz0lV/hiW0M+cDcas sKftErtsZpRy3wwXdkBcJt6soYuqfCHwgMfL2iC6mPviE8xWAHMOmhdC3wDskZpb RcLfH5IMYajJAGRO/GCMcKKbq7WkEOeloivtg64xBlYuJf9aOcHKP/8R3EObiNp7 ubQAJtV3pEGD4mx1mhutFxDHB+CfnxE3dWvxZSV9y1n4UOzkDJ3kDx5Ee0MbRvJD w6aXKc6dhYREgh7hLDcMFz+3LcBiZDLxI3g+SHe3Bl61vdsnPno+0HhCzvB+fL4S eoy7Myfiunz9BrB2HPN+wNCT0YgV+Kv8QoDGzBwos5H1vUJSY4t59w6xoXAYUsAm hjAM8s+rUtG40mcUWePd8kZtgE9IV1eQ+Qt8/SNpSdRnUunmIGl3JjHvEwARAQAB tClMZWFuZHJvIEN1bmhhIDxsZWFuZHJvY3VuaGEwMTZAZ21haWwuY29tPokCTgQT AQoAOBYhBLT5oBCvKN3HzFEPK8LZ4zKUW9A8BQJf4EPIAhsDBQsJCAcCBhUKCQgL AgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEMLZ4zKUW9A8FjAQAKWYqiLpLUD+DLB+NSy3DI3rf9z3 k0vE7TLaEjdEM5CQWN+j4vBqMnAckdcARvSWPndTjp8K+mtFF4PyfhNbS64z/a7L F3DdhmX73n7LKFG8Ow9NZwcrkmPwH5WcP7mXTh6R+6/+OSL/K85NB8MLlxQTJOni julVax9JEZjwBaP2HLCu53Zq9gZcvJlXoAoTHyTxKdp8Mh8V+Qit26E78o9c6SQD Dq9eyMRG8hYCRfreDjKceRkYHjECySlk+VoI1ssVs07Dqvxg6qSyP4RnW+1+W74C s0yIyuC/eRJpMAf1PBQEOOrVcTfRfpN+go955t21yIAvT58vqotTM5eaqXYIQn/y sC4lThZai/ZBZHxl5Mbv42WkkYdjisLQOCALIMBpj5nq4oh2C+kvMupcuBKfERgV dguU51MzfQktKb6d5y777zYnDaFMQDD2IfiD/C7ln5A9LP/L54ixlA3uRmWx/yAx /m+Zusws98j4Eq/jw5T54XW655m6lMCTE9WXLJkgxrRcEonHSllbgRSsToEmWq0Z doxcnpagHdcGQzW+cu2VOGi1da73ZFmrn+ptJgc8cW2suO06IeArOi0TzIg7e65j Xp2DbJCpFrfzEuBb1u71WvB8V2MkAfJZx/uZJPCA936B4HT8YGPEMzlQRIHI2Y9C +DloyzlBLTS1EMKuuQINBF/gQ8gBEAC47o9u1Wm9jZ6RC+lfxEDEvVS7MmI5VzSy q04rFttWwbKix13pc65aDlk47LxWrb84N3Gnf1E/OTsLTXqC7u5JZ7YJkC6CsPbo D1sQkfCiJCFCTgf7dydEVt8ujS/Uu1kz86ufdRwaMRcvBZAORGdB58LEsLB65WN4 hLRYF7xvcxu6t7FGrIYereaxUAWLA2B/ZnCEdOY94w7s0uaPjHdf4lfHebuZ7T08 iG5ACDvKBjgaFArGfdNYWchXJgbOEg14bGj40/8LuBKQMZASiFSqLPZxoporK9FY xBw+D080dUWWD5g868TZ3pkM3DXO9bdq22IBKqKOep8CnuKgoDpUvA8dTEY/UDCn sdOlBUK/Y9zTGVmD/90cO/xkvkV78suqiBnwBSddPzVS0EuiWwrLGu8gaY4EyM/X 7khlbTcMgh4njzUCAE6Tq+TbXSxn86wuOybVY5Y+I99LNdsocI5SIn2nDh2IOi00 4dE/iwO2MatWIOLFBC7pw8Xv4UHZY+WIf3Y/6XjExpllhUkeB6BwZpTr1SXk+cug q5Dj5i4aGn2LrvQJ57terqUWYyDUBFgXTc4SPOzT5og8CavBgHfrQoFwSnRZ2oyX xtZhEDI5Pk2j1qTbOhXZ29po4rPNWHMq2HQgM0I+BqQndsoVdkPOFzS2wKkdXjCz bNYcyanusQARAQABiQI2BBgBCgAgFiEEtPmgEK8o3cfMUQ8rwtnjMpRb0DwFAl/g Q8gCGwwACgkQwtnjMpRb0Dzh6g//ZjXaWSzKmG5ZS6XJa/ZOokkE2hFOFusWX8Qa hEwLAnTFEy02dLfV54rKwmu2jHPDKLhE+iYtusvytueZAzVRyQahv0RE4BH8Emqw gQdBwyJ/L+QhUp/lMdJ6Hh/2ZSZmzU29U24vnY+U+haoB1fLnA3lXgOP59kMLGud lERR2Vluuc7TcpzvcaRWgrQRU2vSrrBBEp6y07iVKbRM/9yhE/aHJahLbh
Re: CVE-2017-5715
On 3/25/22 03:24, Leandro Cunha wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: >> >> On 3/23/22 22:43, Leandro Cunha wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:33 PM Georgi Naplatanov wrote: On 3/23/22 18:35, piorunz wrote: > On 23/03/2022 15:41, Leandro Cunha wrote: > >> Please, take into consideration what is in the link and you can >> consult through >> it about CVE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2017-5715 > > Leandro, > I've been on this website before I posted with spectre-meltdown-checker > results. I have vulnerable status just like author of this topic. I am > on intel-microcode 3.20210608.2, and by the look of it, this bug > supposed to be fixed in: > > "intel-microcode: Some microcode updates to partially adress > CVE-2017-5715 included in 3.20171215.1 > Further updates in 3.20180312.1" > > So my version of microcode is 3-4 years newer than that. > > Is it microcode problem, or spectre-meltdown-checker displaying wrong > information, or something else entirely? > I want to mention that on the same computer with kernel Debian 5.10.92-2 spectre-meltdown-checker reports that the system is not vulnerable to CVE-2017-5715 Kind regards Georgi >>> >>> This script is reporting an already patched CVE as vulnerable. >> >> >> Are you sure this behavior on 5.10.103-1 is not some kind of regression? >> What is the evidence that vulnerability is still fixed? >> >> >> Kind regards >> Georgi >> > > When replying to your email I was aware of the script issue that was reporting > several already resolved CVEs as unresolved. As Salvatore sent the issue link. > But it seems to me that this problem was solved 7 days ago, it would be > interesting if there was an update or a backport to stable. > Hi Leandro, I also think that an update would be nice. Kind regards Georgi
