• @BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    20
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    For the record I agree with @fernandofig@reddthat.com, but I also want to add that a DoS is not necessarily a security risk. If it can be leveraged to expose sensitive information, then yes, that’s a vulnerability; this isn’t that.

    Digging into the CVEs:

    CVE-2024-24989:

    #Security Advisory Description

    When NGINX Plus or NGINX OSS are configured to use the HTTP/3 QUIC module, undisclosed requests can cause NGINX worker processes to terminate. (CVE-2024-24989)

    Note: The HTTP/3 QUIC module is not enabled by default and is considered experimental. For more information, refer to Support for QUIC and HTTP/3.

    #Impact

    Traffic is disrupted while the NGINX process restarts. This vulnerability allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) on the NGINX system. There is no control plane exposure; this is a data plane issue only.

    CVE-2024-24990 basically says the same.

    Some choice clauses:

    undisclosed requests can cause NGINX worker processes to terminate

    Traffic is disrupted while the NGINX process restarts.

    So it doesn’t take down the server nor the parent process, it kills some threads which then… restart.

    Note: The HTTP/3 QUIC module is not enabled by default and is considered experimental

    I was able to find that the affected versions:

    NGINX Plus R30 P2 and R31 P1
    Open source subscription R5 P2 and R6 P1 Open source mainline version 1.25.4

    but most importantly:

    The latest NGINX Open source stable version 1.24.0 is not affected.

    And saving me the hassle of linking and quoting all 5 of the version history pages for the affected products, the uniting factor is: they’re all based on Open Source versions 1.25.*

    None of them are using the latest stable version.

    It’s not even going to affect most sites, and definitely not ones for whom downtime is a major issue: they would not be using the non-stable version, much less enabling experimental features in a non-stable version.

    But the part that irks me the most is the dillution of what a CVE is. Back in the day, it meant “something that can lead to security breaches,” now it just seems to mean “hey guys, I found a bug.” And that’s bad because now you have one of two outcomes: 1. unnecessarily panicking users by leading them to believe their software is a security risk when it isn’t, or 2. compromising the integrity and usability of CVE reports by drowing the important ones in waves of “look guys, the program crashes when I can leverage root privileges to send it SIGKILL!”

    If this was just a bug hunter trying to get paid, that’s one thing, but these were internally assigned and disclosed. This was an inside job. And they either ignored or never consulted the actual experts, the ones they have within their own staff: the devs.

    Why? To what end? Did they feel left out, what with not having any CVEs since 2022? Does this play some internal political struggle chess move? Do they just hate the idea of clear and unambiguous communication of major security holes to the general public? Are they trying to disrupt their own users’ faith in their paid products? Does someone actually think a DoS is the worst thing that can happen? Is there an upper level manager running their own 1.25 instance that needs this fixed out-of-band?

    It’s just all so asinine.

    • chameleon
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      Note: The HTTP/3 QUIC module is not enabled by default and is considered experimental

      Do note that despite not being enabled by default, it is enabled in the official binary packages.

      There’s a funny amount of layers to this thing but as far as I’m concerned, if it’s a feature you ship in the default binary packages on your site, that is definitively enough for a CVE even if it’s disabled by default.

    • @lorty@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      59 months ago
      • Doesn’t expose information
      • the service/thread just restarts
      • Is an experimental feature
      • that’s not enabled by default

      Yeah I can definitely see why the devs decided to just fix it on the next patch. Reporting a CVE for this feels very unnecessary.