<?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://vulnerability.circl.lu</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>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 16:26:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2026-02696</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/bdu:2026-02696</link>
      <description>bdu:2026-02696</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/bdu:2026-02696</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-38499 — clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38499</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What we want is to verify there is that clone won&amp;#39;t expose something
hidden by a mount we wouldn&amp;#39;t be able to undo.  &amp;#34;Wouldn&amp;#39;t be able to undo&amp;#34;
may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from
lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#39;s a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various
userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve
different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually,
but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What we want is to verify there is that clone won&amp;#39;t expose something
hidden by a mount we wouldn&amp;#39;t be able to undo.  &amp;#34;Wouldn&amp;#39;t be able to undo&amp;#34;
may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from
lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#39;s a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various
userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve
different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually,
but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
