| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Remote Development Extension for Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Quantum Development Kit for Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Visual Studio Code ESLint Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Azure Sphere Unsigned Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Azure Virtual Machine Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Azure Sphere Unsigned Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
af_unix: Set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc().
Igor Ushakov reported that unix_gc() could run with gc_in_progress
being false if the work is scheduled while running:
Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3
-------- -------- --------
unix_schedule_gc() unix_schedule_gc()
`- if (!gc_in_progress) `- if (!gc_in_progress)
|- gc_in_progress = true |
`- queue_work() |
unix_gc() <----------------/ |
| |- gc_in_progress = true
... `- queue_work()
| |
`- gc_in_progress = false |
|
unix_gc() <---------------------------------------------'
|
... /* gc_in_progress == false */
|
`- gc_in_progress = false
unix_peek_fpl() relies on gc_in_progress not to confuse GC
by MSG_PEEK.
Let's set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc(). |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix ld_{abs,ind} failure path analysis in subprogs
Usage of ld_{abs,ind} instructions got extended into subprogs some time
ago via commit 09b28d76eac4 ("bpf: Add abnormal return checks."). These
are only allowed in subprograms when the latter are BTF annotated and
have scalar return types.
The code generator in bpf_gen_ld_abs() has an abnormal exit path (r0=0 +
exit) from legacy cBPF times. While the enforcement is on scalar return
types, the verifier must also simulate the path of abnormal exit if the
packet data load via ld_{abs,ind} failed.
This is currently not the case. Fix it by having the verifier simulate
both success and failure paths, and extend it in similar ways as we do
for tail calls. The success path (r0=unknown, continue to next insn) is
pushed onto stack for later validation and the r0=0 and return to the
caller is done on the fall-through side. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
futex: Prevent lockup in requeue-PI during signal/ timeout wakeup
During wait-requeue-pi (task A) and requeue-PI (task B) the following
race can happen:
Task A Task B
futex_wait_requeue_pi()
futex_setup_timer()
futex_do_wait()
futex_requeue()
CLASS(hb, hb1)(&key1);
CLASS(hb, hb2)(&key2);
*timeout*
futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync()
requeue_state = Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE
*blocks on hb->lock*
futex_proxy_trylock_atomic()
futex_requeue_pi_prepare()
Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE => -EAGAIN
double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2)
*retry*
Task B acquires both hb locks and attempts to acquire the PI-lock of the
top most waiter (task B). Task A is leaving early due to a signal/
timeout and started removing itself from the queue. It updates its
requeue_state but can not remove it from the list because this requires
the hb lock which is owned by task B.
Usually task A is able to swoop the lock after task B unlocked it.
However if task B is of higher priority then task A may not be able to
wake up in time and acquire the lock before task B gets it again.
Especially on a UP system where A is never scheduled.
As a result task A blocks on the lock and task B busy loops, trying to
make progress but live locks the system instead. Tragic.
This can be fixed by removing the top most waiter from the list in this
case. This allows task B to grab the next top waiter (if any) in the
next iteration and make progress.
Remove the top most waiter if futex_requeue_pi_prepare() fails.
Let the waiter conditionally remove itself from the list in
handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup(). |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: ns: Limit the maximum server registration per node
Current code does no bound checking on the number of servers added per
node. A malicious client can flood NEW_SERVER messages and exhaust memory.
Fix this issue by limiting the maximum number of server registrations to
256 per node. If the NEW_SERVER message is received for an old port, then
don't restrict it as it will get replaced. While at it, also rate limit
the error messages in the failure path of qrtr_ns_worker().
Note that the limit of 256 is chosen based on the current platform
requirements. If requirement changes in the future, this limit can be
increased. |
| Azure RTOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Azure RTOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Denial of Service Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability |
| Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability |
| Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability |
