https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sightings/feed 2026-05-05T16:56:20.928257+00:00 Vulnerability-Lookup info@circl.lu python-feedgen Contains only the most 10 recent sightings. https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/1a9384c9-b839-4b24-b392-189adcb540b1/export 2026-05-05T16:56:21.262402+00:00 Automation user http://vulnerability.circl.lu/user/automation {"uuid": "1a9384c9-b839-4b24-b392-189adcb540b1", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-58085", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/DarkWebInformer_CVEAlerts/6706", "content": "\ud83d\udd17 DarkWebInformer.com - Cyber Threat Intelligence\n\ud83d\udccc CVE ID: CVE-2024-58085\n\ud83d\udd25 CVSS Score: N/A\n\ud83d\udd39 Description: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ntomoyo: don't emit warning in tomoyo_write_control()\n\nsyzbot is reporting too large allocation warning at tomoyo_write_control(),\nfor one can write a very very long line without new line character. To fix\nthis warning, I use __GFP_NOWARN rather than checking for KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE,\nfor practically a valid line should be always shorter than 32KB where the\n\"too small to fail\" memory-allocation rule applies.\n\nOne might try to write a valid line that is longer than 32KB, but such\nrequest will likely fail with -ENOMEM. Therefore, I feel that separately\nreturning -EINVAL when a line is longer than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is redundant.\nThere is no need to distinguish over-32KB and over-KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.\n\ud83d\udccf Published: 2025-03-06T16:22:32.761Z\n\ud83d\udccf Modified: 2025-03-06T16:22:32.761Z\n\ud83d\udd17 References:\n1. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a01c200fa7eb59da4d2dbbb48b61f4a0d196c09f\n2. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe1c021eb03dae0dc9dce55e81f77a60e419a27a\n3. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c9382f380e8d09209b8e5c0def0545852168be25\n4. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/414705c0303350d139b1dc18f329fe47dfb642dd\n5. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3df7546fc03b8f004eee0b9e3256369f7d096685", "creation_timestamp": "2025-03-06T16:34:06.000000Z"} 2025-03-06T16:34:06+00:00 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/a5ea4082-aa9e-4bc7-be62-79e1d9a8b199/export 2026-05-05T16:56:21.262250+00:00 Automation user http://vulnerability.circl.lu/user/automation {"uuid": "a5ea4082-aa9e-4bc7-be62-79e1d9a8b199", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-58085", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/cvedetector/19732", "content": "{\n \"Source\": \"CVE FEED\",\n \"Title\": \"CVE-2024-58085 - Linux Tomoyo Overlong Line Allocation Denial of Service\", \n \"Content\": \"CVE ID : CVE-2024-58085 \nPublished : March 6, 2025, 5:15 p.m. | 1\u00a0hour ago \nDescription : In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: \n \ntomoyo: don't emit warning in tomoyo_write_control() \n \nsyzbot is reporting too large allocation warning at tomoyo_write_control(), \nfor one can write a very very long line without new line character. To fix \nthis warning, I use __GFP_NOWARN rather than checking for KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE, \nfor practically a valid line should be always shorter than 32KB where the \n\"too small to fail\" memory-allocation rule applies. \n \nOne might try to write a valid line that is longer than 32KB, but such \nrequest will likely fail with -ENOMEM. Therefore, I feel that separately \nreturning -EINVAL when a line is longer than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is redundant. \nThere is no need to distinguish over-32KB and over-KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. \nSeverity: 0.0 | NA \nVisit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...\",\n \"Detection Date\": \"06 Mar 2025\",\n \"Type\": \"Vulnerability\"\n}\n\ud83d\udd39 t.me/cvedetector \ud83d\udd39", "creation_timestamp": "2025-03-06T19:41:55.000000Z"} 2025-03-06T19:41:55+00:00 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/3661e020-5ffa-4973-abb0-ec42a5712654/export 2026-05-05T16:56:21.260156+00:00 Automation user http://vulnerability.circl.lu/user/automation {"uuid": "3661e020-5ffa-4973-abb0-ec42a5712654", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-58085", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/DarkWebInformer_CVEAlerts/14785", "content": "\ud83d\udd17 DarkWebInformer.com - Cyber Threat Intelligence\n\ud83d\udccc CVE ID: CVE-2024-58085\n\ud83d\udd25 CVSS Score: N/A\n\ud83d\udd39 Description: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ntomoyo: don't emit warning in tomoyo_write_control()\n\nsyzbot is reporting too large allocation warning at tomoyo_write_control(),\nfor one can write a very very long line without new line character. To fix\nthis warning, I use __GFP_NOWARN rather than checking for KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE,\nfor practically a valid line should be always shorter than 32KB where the\n\"too small to fail\" memory-allocation rule applies.\n\nOne might try to write a valid line that is longer than 32KB, but such\nrequest will likely fail with -ENOMEM. Therefore, I feel that separately\nreturning -EINVAL when a line is longer than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is redundant.\nThere is no need to distinguish over-32KB and over-KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.\n\ud83d\udccf Published: 2025-03-06T16:22:32.761Z\n\ud83d\udccf Modified: 2025-05-04T10:09:44.077Z\n\ud83d\udd17 References:\n1. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c67efabddc73171c7771d3ffe4ffa1e503ee533e\n2. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f6b37b3e12de638753bce79a2858070b9c4a4ad3\n3. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b2bd5857a0d6973ebbcb4d9831ddcaebbd257be1\n4. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a01c200fa7eb59da4d2dbbb48b61f4a0d196c09f\n5. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe1c021eb03dae0dc9dce55e81f77a60e419a27a\n6. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c9382f380e8d09209b8e5c0def0545852168be25\n7. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/414705c0303350d139b1dc18f329fe47dfb642dd\n8. https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3df7546fc03b8f004eee0b9e3256369f7d096685", "creation_timestamp": "2025-05-04T11:19:04.000000Z"} 2025-05-04T11:19:04+00:00