OpenSSH Local Root Hole

maelstrom writes: "Looks like someone's found a local root exploit for OpenSSH versions between 2.0 and 3.0.2. Seems as though its a one-off error, there is no public exploit, but there is sure to be one shortly. They aren't ruling out remote exploit. Recommending patching and upgrading ASAP."

Comments

More Proof

[SquierStrat]

This is just more proof that nothing is 100% secure. :-) How does that saying go, if it can be devise it what? Some want to finish that for me?

Regardless of that though, I get on my knees and thank God everyday for SSH. It's saved me many many many hassles from simply forgetting to turn it off on computers on my home's network.

Please stop writing network apps in C!

[Tom7]

This kind of bug would NOT BE EXPLOITABLE if sshd was written in a modern safe language.

If the canonical secure software from the canonical secure software people has bugs like this, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's possible to write secure code in C. C makes it easy to make this kind of bug, and the bugs are often exploitable.

Check out my previous post and ensuing discussion on this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24271&cid=2629 013 for more info. Synopsis: There are some reasons to use C for a project, but none apply to network daemons. As a proof of concept, I rewrote FTPD in my favorite modern language; the source went from 24,000 lines to 3000 (including support code, like PAM_MD5 password encryption), took me only a weekend to write, and is 100% buffer overflow / format string / heap corruption free.

I'm trying to raise awareness about this because I think it's a real obstacle to us having secure software.

Re:Please stop writing network apps in C!

[Tom7]

> How did it cope with 18,000 simultaneous
> connections? Did you use mmap(), sendfile() and
> friends on linux to get the best performance
> possible? How did the xfer rates compare?

I can't handle 18,000 simultaneous connections, but I don't think that 99% of people actually care about that. In fact, I don't think linux even supports 18,000 open file descriptors at the same time. My ftpd is intended for the home user who cares more about getting rooted than the low-level performance of his servers.

Yes, it uses sendfile to transfer files when it doesn't need to do EOL conversion. I'm easily able to fill my 100Mbps connection without breaking a sweat either way. (In my informal benchmarks, my server got exactly the same transfer rates as wu_ftpd).

> I actually do agree with your points mostly, but
> I would say "Don't use c for network apps unless
> you have a good reason to"

Well, ok, but what would be a good reason to?
One might be that you need to write a server that can really handle 18,000 connections. (Then, I hope that the users of your server have enough cash to pay someone to maintain them, apply security patches, etc.)

> In some ways SSH is a special case anyway. It
> has all the intensive maths stuff to do for the
> session key generation etc. Not a good idea to
> code that in (eg.) perl imo.

Yes, that's true. SSHD probably uses much more CPU than a typical network app. Yet (see my other posts), it really doesn't use that much anyway.

I wouldn't suggest writing it in perl, since perl has its own kinds of easily exploitable bugs. Also, the performance of perl is not in the 20%-100% category that I mentioned. ;)

> BTW, out of interest, what is your "favorite
> modern language" ??

Standard ML. It's got loads of cool features like higher-order functions, polymorphism, datatypes, parameterized modules, and static typing (which also really helps to catch bugs). It's natively compiled and quite fast. You can learn about it at standardml.org. Hacker types might like O'Caml better, that's at caml.inria.fr.

Performance of network software

[Tom7]

> I cry BS. Your previous post claimed that
> performance was not a reason and yet I don't
> believe you. Wake up and stop acting as the HW
> vendors lobbyist.

Actually, I am a "modern languages" lobbyist, not hardware. =) But that's because I study and believe in programming languages, not because I have some kind of financial interest.

I'd love to respond to your post but I don't know what your point is. I guess all I can do is reiterate my point on performance:

1. sshd, running on my machine for about 8 months, has accumulated a mere 2 minutes and 30 seconds of CPU time. Of course, sshd forks off a new process for each connection, but all of the ones on my machine (some of which are at least a week old) have used 0:00. If someone knows a way I can measure the actual time spent by the daemon, I'd like to hear it, but I assume for now that it is *very small*.

2. I can easily fill my 100Mbps connection without breaking 2% CPU usage. (In other words, sshd is bandwidth limited, not CPU limited.)

3. Most home / small business users do not have 100Mbps connections, and could care less about the difference between 2% or 5% CPU usage.

4. However, most home / small business users DO care about having to download patches when their C programs contain buffer overflows.

5. Modern languages are not actually much slower than C. (I estimate worst case 2x slower, typically more like 20% for SML, which is what I wrote my FTPD in.) Being easier to write in, they also give more opportunity for high-level optimizations.

Therefore, I conclude that for almost every user, security is a more important concern than speed, at least as far as network daemons go. How can you argue the opposite?

Ha ha, ignorance is funny.

[Crag]

If there were such a thing, it would use ucspi-tcp, not an additional inetd replacement, and like qmail. Ucspi-tcp provides functionality that inetd doesn't, and maintains the "connection handling" vs "services" separation that inetd provides. It is a natural step to replace parts which do not provide whatever is needed, and to reuse those parts.

Also, qmail's division of the jobs into multiple independant modules makes security analysis and improvement of the whole package much easier. Every module is completely and explicitly documented in man pages and numerous web pages, so even a less advanced programmer like me can write a wrapper for a module to add funcionality to. The risk of unexpected consequences is FAR lower because modules have their own UIDs.

If there's a good reason for it, why not do it?

Re:I don't think so.

[Alioth]

The hacker world would rather beat more simple targets like Windows than go for something complicated like SSH on Linux.

Don't bet on it. A while back, for kicks, I checked to see who was bombarding what ports on my box with attempted hacks. A large portion of them came from 0wn3d Linux systems. I'm just glad that (a) I kept things patched (b) didn't have a default RedHat install and (c) had a MIPS processor that obfuscated any hole I didn't yet know about.

If you don't patch a potentially remote-root hole, it's not a case of "if". It's a case of "when" you'll be 0wn3d.