<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://db.gcve.eu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-11-09T16:21:20.298011+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@gcve.eu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://db.gcve.eu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2026-99281</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-99281 — tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device</title>
    <updated>2026-11-09T16:21:20.299991+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device</p>
<p>Twenty years ago I made creating a tuntap device require CAP_NET_ADMIN
in commit ca6bb5d7ab22 ("[NET]: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to create tuntap
devices.")</p>
<p>The idea was to allow the permissions on /dev/net/tun to be relaxed to
0666 and thus allow owners of tun devices assigned with TUNSETOWNER to
actually open it and get at their devices.</p>
<p>What we missed at the time was that persistent devices with *no* owner
were already essentially world-consumable, and anyone who could open
the device node could also attach to those.</p>
<p>Even then, using persistent devices with no explicitly set owner — on
the (false) presumption that CAP_NET_ADMIN would be required to open
them — wasn't an egregious userspace bug. There are cases where it does
make sense to separate the creation/configuration of the netdevice, from
the process which shovels packets into it.</p>
<p>Since then, TUNSETGROUP was added a year later in commit 8c644623fe7e
("[NET]: Allow group ownership of TUN/TAP devices."). Its commit message
noted that if both uid and gid are set, both have to match (in itself a
bizarre choice) — but still not that with *neither* set, no permission
at all was required.</p>
<p>Then in 2012 commit c8d68e6be1c3 ("tuntap: multiqueue support") allowed
new queues to be attached to a device from the moment of its creation,
with no way for userspace to close the race between creation and…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2026-99281"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
