Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible SAMBA Vulnerability

Posted by michael on from the apt-get-time-again dept.

veg writes "The samba team have released 2.2.7 following the discovery of a secureity hole in versions 2.2.2 to 2.2.6 that could lead to remote root access. Eeek! Full story on the samba site"

7 of 32 comments (clear)

  1. Too much of a good thing by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Funny

    The samba team have released 2.2.7 following the discovery of a secureity hole in versions 2.2.2 to 2.2.6 that could lead to remote root access.

    So, basically, they're vacillating on the question of full SMB compatibility?

    -- MarkusQ

  2. Re:When by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eloy Paris and Steve Langasek (spelling?) of the Debian
    Samba community were chasing a user reported core dump bug
    and they noticed the problem.

    They reported it to security@samba.org, and I fixed it that
    night (with a perfectly correct CVS comment that also failed
    to point out the security hole :-).

    We then worked with the Linux vendors via the vendorsec
    mailing list to ensure they were all aware of the problem
    and could issue updates at the same time we announced. Once
    we'd tested the release, we pushed the button and released...

    That is a nice textbook case of how Open Source/Free Software
    security can work.

    Cheers,

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team

  3. Re:typical rant ahead by xchino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would justify it being posted here. It hasn't been found to be exploitable, even by the samba team. They have, however released a new version to correct this (as well as add a few features and fixes), showing excellent mode of quality control exceeding that which often even proprietary software vendors fail to meet, in an OpenSource model. Just a thought...

    --
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
  4. Re:When by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We then worked with the Linux vendors via the vendorsec mailing list to ensure they were all aware of the problem and could issue updates at the same time we announced. Once we'd tested the release, we pushed the button and released...

    What about Apple? Do you work directly with them? I would wager that the millions of Mac OS X-equipped Macs sold each year are rapidly making Apple the #1 distributor of Samba...

    --
    four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
  5. Re:Phew by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you can craft an exploit for this, please
    mail it to me and we'll talk about getting you
    working full time on Samba.

    Yes, it could crash smbd (for the authenticated
    user) but causing it to run code is another matter.

    We couldn't work out how to do that, but hey, I'm
    willing to believe you might know how. Show me.

    Or are you just mouthing off with no expertise to
    back it up ?

    Regards,

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  6. Re:it's a mystery by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because it doesn't crash anymore when you
    send it a packet that would overflow the buffer :-).

    Cheers,

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  7. Never ever trust your internal network. by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Depending on what level of security you strive for ofcourse. There will always be back entryways into your network. A firewall that stops incoming traffic on let say port 137-139 doesnt stop all attacks. Someone might aswell succed in hacking something else on another port and then go on to the samba server from the internal network.

    I also strongly suggest you not to trust inhouse staff completely. Most hackings that really hurts are insiders that rarely gets discovered.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400