<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://db.gcve.eu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 16:09:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2026-99281</title>
      <link>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-99281</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Twenty years ago I made creating a tuntap device require CAP_NET_ADMIN
in commit ca6bb5d7ab22 (&amp;#34;[NET]: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to create tuntap
devices.&amp;#34;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since then, TUNSETGROUP was added a year later in commit 8c644623fe7e
(&amp;#34;[NET]: Allow group ownership of TUN/TAP devices.&amp;#34;). 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then in 2012 commit c8d68e6be1c3 (&amp;#34;tuntap: multiqueue support&amp;#34;) 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…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Twenty years ago I made creating a tuntap device require CAP_NET_ADMIN
in commit ca6bb5d7ab22 (&amp;#34;[NET]: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to create tuntap
devices.&amp;#34;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since then, TUNSETGROUP was added a year later in commit 8c644623fe7e
(&amp;#34;[NET]: Allow group ownership of TUN/TAP devices.&amp;#34;). 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then in 2012 commit c8d68e6be1c3 (&amp;#34;tuntap: multiqueue support&amp;#34;) 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…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-99281</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-cfrf-w8r8-rf8x</title>
      <link>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/ghsa-cfrf-w8r8-rf8x</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Twenty years ago I made creating a tuntap device require CAP_NET_ADMIN
in commit ca6bb5d7ab22 (&amp;#34;[NET]: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to create tuntap
devices.&amp;#34;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since then, TUNSETGROUP was added a year later in commit 8c644623fe7e
(&amp;#34;[NET]: Allow group ownership of TUN/TAP devices.&amp;#34;). 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then in 2012 commit c8d68e6be1c3 (&amp;#34;tuntap: multiqueue support&amp;#34;) 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…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;tun: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach to an ownerless device&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Twenty years ago I made creating a tuntap device require CAP_NET_ADMIN
in commit ca6bb5d7ab22 (&amp;#34;[NET]: Require CAP_NET_ADMIN to create tuntap
devices.&amp;#34;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since then, TUNSETGROUP was added a year later in commit 8c644623fe7e
(&amp;#34;[NET]: Allow group ownership of TUN/TAP devices.&amp;#34;). 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then in 2012 commit c8d68e6be1c3 (&amp;#34;tuntap: multiqueue support&amp;#34;) 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…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/ghsa-cfrf-w8r8-rf8x</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-4414 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
      <link>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-4414</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, möglicherweise einen Denial-of-Service-Angriff auszulösen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, möglicherweise einen Denial-of-Service-Angriff auszulösen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-4414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
