In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: af_alg - Disallow concurrent writes in af_alg_sendmsg Issuing two writes to the same af_alg socket is bogus as the data will be interleaved in an unpredictable fashion. Furthermore, concurrent writes may create inconsistencies in the internal socket state. Disallow this by adding a new ctx->write field that indiciates exclusive ownership for writing.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tls: fix handling of zero-length records on the rx_list Each recvmsg() call must process either - only contiguous DATA records (any number of them) - one non-DATA record If the next record has different type than what has already been processed we break out of the main processing loop. If the record has already been decrypted (which may be the case for TLS 1.3 where we don't know type until decryption) we queue the pending record to the rx_list. Next recvmsg() will pick it up from there. Queuing the skb to rx_list after zero-copy decrypt is not possible, since in that case we decrypted directly to the user space buffer, and we don't have an skb to queue (darg.skb points to the ciphertext skb for access to metadata like length). Only data records are allowed zero-copy, and we break the processing loop after each non-data record. So we should never zero-copy and then find out that the record type has changed. The corner case we missed is when the initial record comes from rx_list, and it's zero length.
gRPC-Go is the Go language implementation of gRPC. Versions prior to 1.79.3 have an authorization bypass resulting from improper input validation of the HTTP/2 `:path` pseudo-header. The gRPC-Go server was too lenient in its routing logic, accepting requests where the `:path` omitted the mandatory leading slash (e.g., `Service/Method` instead of `/Service/Method`). While the server successfully routed these requests to the correct handler, authorization interceptors (including the official `grpc/authz` package) evaluated the raw, non-canonical path string. Consequently, "deny" rules defined using canonical paths (starting with `/`) failed to match the incoming request, allowing it to bypass the policy if a fallback "allow" rule was present. This affects gRPC-Go servers that use path-based authorization interceptors, such as the official RBAC implementation in `google.golang.org/grpc/authz` or custom interceptors relying on `info.FullMethod` or `grpc.Method(ctx)`; AND that have a security policy contains specific "deny" rules for canonical paths but allows other requests by default (a fallback "allow" rule). The vulnerability is exploitable by an attacker who can send raw HTTP/2 frames with malformed `:path` headers directly to the gRPC server. The fix in version 1.79.3 ensures that any request with a `:path` that does not start with a leading slash is immediately rejected with a `codes.Unimplemented` error, preventing it from reaching authorization interceptors or handlers with a non-canonical path string. While upgrading is the most secure and recommended path, users can mitigate the vulnerability using one of the following methods: Use a validating interceptor (recommended mitigation); infrastructure-level normalization; and/or policy hardening.
via cve_org
| Version | Type | Source | Base | Exp | Imp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | Red Hat | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Primary | cve.org | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Secondary | GHSA | 9.1 | — | — |
| 3.1 | Secondary | NVD | 9.1 | 3.9 | 5.2 |
| 3.1 | Secondary | NVD | 9.1 | 3.9 | 5.2 |
| 3.1 | Secondary | ENISA EUVD | 9.1 | — | — |