• RustyNova@lemmy.world
    23·
    12 days ago

    For the stable distribution (trixie), these problems have been fixed in version 6.12.111-1.

    Debian problems I guess

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      28·
      12 days ago

      Debian problems I guess

      Not really; the Linux kernel has had 8500 CVEs so far this year (according to this).

      Most of them aren’t actually known to be definitely-exploitable security bugs, but some are. You can read more about how Linux issues CVEs from this post on Greg Kroah-Hartman’s website: Linux CVEs, more than you ever wanted to know (and/or watch one of his talks on the subject which is linked from there).

      See also this article from July: Linux kernel team publishes 432 CVEs in two days: Sunday-to-Monday onslaught fuels speculation over AI-assisted bug reports.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        3·
        12 days ago

        Yeah, just to add some context, you can detect potential buffer overruns in code by looking for patterns but just because you find potential buffer overruns doesn’t mean they are exploitable. The user needs to be able to inject not just code or parameters but also a return address that causes the injected code to run or triggers another function call with the injected parameters. With randomized code and stack addresses, this can be difficult or practically impossible, even if it’s easy to customize what bytes go into the overrun part of the buffer.

        It’s like finding small parts of dangerous patterns but those small parts aren’t necessarily dangerous on their own and need more of the pattern to be an issue, but if you fix the small parts you find, you’re less likely run into those bigger patterns, so it’s worthwhile to fix the small patterns when they come up, but without fitting into a larger pattern, it wasn’t an actual security hole, just a potential one.

      • Ooops@feddit.org
        4·
        12 days ago

        But still listing year’s old vulnerabilities that got fixed long ago because they are still supporting ancient stuff like 5.10LTS is Debian-specific.

        • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          10·
          12 days ago

          But still listing year’s old vulnerabilities that got fixed long ago because they are still supporting ancient stuff like 5.10LTS is Debian-specific.

          The advisory this meme is about only relates to the 6.12 kernel in Debian 13 “trixie” (Debian’s current stable release), and 1,295 of these 1,313 CVEs are from 2026.

          Linux 6.12 is the SLTS (“super long-term support”) release from 2024, so the Linux Foundation’s Civil Infrastructure Platform plans to continue backporting security fixes to it until 2035.

          Debian stopped supporting Debian 11 “bullseye” (the one with a 5.10 kernel) in August, but that kernel is also an SLTS which CIP plans to support until 2031.

          So, no, continuing support for these kernels is not something Debian-specific.

          Here are the versions of linux-image-amd64 in Debian currently:

              bullseye (oldoldstable) (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    5.10.262-1 [security]: amd64
    bookworm (oldstable) (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    6.1.187-1 [security]: amd64
    bookworm-backports (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    6.12.95-1~bpo12+1: amd64
    trixie (stable) (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    6.12.111-1 [security]: amd64
    trixie-backports (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    7.1.13-1~bpo13+1: amd64
    forky (testing) (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    7.2.8-1: amd64
    sid (unstable) (kernel): Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
    7.2.8-1: amd64
  • kurmudgeon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    12 days ago

    If the PS5 is based off of Linux, and some of these vulnerabilities tested, don’t impact the PS5 in any way, does that mean technically Sony could get sued for not recontributing code back to the Linux projects? I mean, it means they fixed the issues on the PS5 but didn’t contribute it back right?

    • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      40·
      12 days ago

      I’m pretty sure PS5 is based off of BSD, whose license pretty much translates in corporate world to do whatever the fuck you want with it.

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      16·
      12 days ago

      If the PS5 is based off of Linux

      I don’t think it is though? After a few seconds searching I don’t see anything conclusive but PS4’s OS was based on FreeBSD so I would guess PS5’s probably is also. (I see that if you have a PS5 with old enough firmware you can put Linux on it yourself…)

      Sony does have some experience shipping Linux-based products though (probably first with Linux for PS2 in 2002, and more recently various android devices) and surely knows how to comply with the GPL.

      • kurmudgeon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        12 days ago

        Ah, you’re right. It is BSD. Good to know. I was simply posing a hypothetical though, I always wondered about things like this

    • carrylex@lemmy.world
      5·
      12 days ago

      vulnerabilities tested, don’t impact the PS5 in any way, does that mean technically Sony could get sued for not recontributing code back to the Linux projects?

      No.

      Let’s assume someone ships the Linux kernel in a device and the kernel has a vulnerability in some obscure subsystem (e.g. AFS) that is never used by the device. The device will not be affected by this vulnerability because the code can’t be reached.

    • StabbingSky@lemmy.zip
      1·
      12 days ago

      No, there’s no legal requirement to contribute to projects you’ve used and modified, unless the license explicitly states so.

  • TomMasz@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    12 days ago

    It took me a while to scroll through the list of CVEs. Clearly, a whole new meaning for the word “few” that I was unaware of.