[devel] [solar на openwall.com: Re: Flaws in recent Linux kernels]
Dmitry V. Levin
Ср Окт 24 14:10:30 MSD 2001
FYI (информация, необходимая для лучшего понимания случиышегося):
----- Forwarded message from Solar Designer <solar на openwall.com> -----
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:38 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar на openwall.com>
To: Martin Kacer <m на kacer.net>
Cc: bugtraq на securityfocus.com, Rafal Wojtczuk <nergal на 7bulls.com>
Subject: Re: Flaws in recent Linux kernels
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:47:13PM +0200, Martin Kacer wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Rafal Wojtczuk wrote:
> # In order for this flaw to be exploitable, /usr/bin/newgrp must be
> # setuid root and world-executable. Additionally, newgrp, when run with no
> # arguments, should not prompt for password. This
These of course are the requirements of the particular exploit only.
Many (but not all) distributions include other programs which may be
suitable for exploiting the kernel vulnerability. And of course it is
possible to install third-party SUID root programs which may be used.
Thus, all distribution vendors should treat this issue seriously. We
> # conditions are satisfied in case of most popular Linux distributions (but
> # not Openwall GNU/*/Linux).
> Well, there is a little of inaccuracy in the first sentence. This is
> a kernel flaw, NOT a bug in newgrp.
Indeed, and I think Nergal has made this clear enough in the rest of
> Other suid programs can be used instead...
_Some_ other programs, yes. Quoting myself,
"Vendors may wish to review their distributions for binaries which meet
all of the following requirements:
1. SUID to root (yes, only to root, or there's no ptrace capability).
2. Are runnable by untrusted users.
3. Let a user execute a program of the user's choice via them (with
privileges of the user, of course).
4. Either don't fork or do fork but do the exec in the parent process.
newgrp(1) seems to be quite unique here. su(1) _may_ be suitable,
too, but PAM'ified versions typically fork; it becomes important which
of the two processes does the exec, so be sure to check. sudo is very
likely suitable with some sudoers configurations. crontab(1) from
Vixie Cron exec's editor in the child, but other implementations may
(from private discussions prior to the Bugtraq announcement).
Now, thanks to the discussion with Martin Kacer, I can add that at
least one PAM'ified version of su(1) is suitable for the attack: the
one that is included in the shadow suite and used on Debian. I also
add login(1) to the list as some distributions are apparently still
installing it SUID root. There may be many other programs in this
world which are suitable for the attack.
I did review all of Owl for binaries which are (1) supplied with the
distribution and (2) meet all of the requirements explained above in
a supported configuration. newgrp is the only one, and it is not
enabled by default. Of course that isn't an excuse and we don't use
it as such. The official statement for Owl is in the changelog entry:
SECURITY FIX Severity: low to high, local, active
A new revision of the Openwall Linux kernel patch, 2.2.19-ow3, is now
available. It contains fixes for two Linux kernel vulnerabilities
discovered by Rafal Wojtczuk <nergal at owl.openwall.com> and is
strongly recommended for use with Owl. One of the vulnerabilities
affected SUID/SGID execution by processes being traced with ptrace(2).
It was possible to trick the kernel into recognizing an unsuspecting
SUID root program as the (privileged) tracer process. Then, if that
program would execute a program supplied by the malicious user (with
the user's credentials), the user's program would inherit the ability
to trace. Fortunately, there's no program that would meet all of the
requirements for this attack in the default Owl install. However,
certain supported non-default configurations of Owl are affected. In
particular, if newgrp(1) is made available to untrusted users (which
is a supported owl-control setting) or certain third-party software
which contains SUID root binaries is installed, the vulnerability may
become exploitable and result in a local root compromise. The other
vulnerability allowed for an effective local DoS attack by causing the
kernel to spend an almost arbitrary amount of time on dereferencing a
single symlink, without giving a chance for processes to run.
Note the possible "high" risk impact in the Severity field, referring
to non-default configurations.
> The main conclusion of my posting is: having other versions of newgrp
> or ignoring LD_DEBUG is insufficient! Probably, ANY Linux distribution is
> vulnerable without the kernel patches!
Of course. The Linux kernel is vulnerable: the interfaces it provides
don't always behave as they should, in a way which makes some legitimate
uses insecure. This means that even if a distribution isn't exploitable
in the default install, its other supported configurations probably are.
This is why we handle this as a very important security fix.
----- End forwarded message -----
Dmitry V. Levin mailto://email@example.com
ALT Linux Team http://www.altlinux.ru/
Fandra Project http://www.fandra.org/
UNIX is user friendly. It's just very selective about who its friends are.
----------- следующая часть -----------
Было удалено вложение не в текстовом формате...
Имя : =?iso-8859-1?q?=CF=D4=D3=D5=D4=D3=D4=D7=D5=C5=D4?=
Тип : application/pgp-signature
Размер : 232 байтов
Url : <http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20011024/4bbc3491/attachment-0001.bin>
Подробная информация о списке рассылки Devel