On 2023-04-11 14:13, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 4/5/23 19:39, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>> On 2023-03-31 01:59, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 31.03.23 um 02:06 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
implemented access to an entity through
On 4/5/23 19:39, Luben Tuikov wrote:
On 2023-03-31 01:59, Christian König wrote:
Am 31.03.23 um 02:06 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
implemented access to an entity through a job that was already removed
from the entities queue.
On 2023-03-31 01:59, Christian König wrote:
> Am 31.03.23 um 02:06 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
>> It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
>> implemented access to an entity through a job that was already removed
>> from the entities queue. Since jobs and entities might have
On 2023-03-31 01:59, Christian König wrote:
> Am 31.03.23 um 02:06 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
>> It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
>> implemented access to an entity through a job that was already removed
>> from the entities queue. Since jobs and entities might have
Am 31.03.23 um 02:06 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
implemented access to an entity through a job that was already removed
from the entities queue. Since jobs and entities might have different
lifecycles, this can potentially cause UAF
It already happend a few times that patches slipped through which
implemented access to an entity through a job that was already removed
from the entities queue. Since jobs and entities might have different
lifecycles, this can potentially cause UAF bugs.
In order to make it obvious that a jobs
