Slashdot Mirror


Local Root Hole in Linux Kernels

xepsilon writes "A local Linux security hole using ptrace has been discovered that allows a potential attacker to gain root privileges. Linux 2.2.25 has been released to correct this security hole, along with a patch for 2.4.20-pre kernels. 2.4.21 ought to contain this fix, once it is released. 2.5 is not believed to be vulnerable to this security hole. See this email from Alan Cox for details, and a patch."

18 of 495 comments (clear)

  1. How is Microsoft responsible? by jmulvey · · Score: 5, Funny

    With all the brainpower on /. I'm sure we can discover a way.

    1. Re:How is Microsoft responsible? by lavalyn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft would have a monopoly on privilege escalation exploits if not for Linux.

      --
      Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
    2. Re:How is Microsoft responsible? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the late George Mallory put it rather succinctly:

      "Because they're there."

      On the other hand, in the words of Voltaire:

      "If Microsoft didn't exist it would be necessary to invent them."

      However, regarding the current kernel situation I think my deeply missed old granny put it best:

      "Oh fuck."

      KFG

  2. Got Root? by FAngel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Got Root?

    1. Re:Got Root? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do now >:)

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    2. Re:Got Root? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do now >:)

      I believe you mean "#:)"

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  3. It's Tuesday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Journal Entries:

    (looks at watch) its monday again... time to go patch my IIS

    (looks at watch) its tuesday again... time to go patch linux.

  4. patched it already by Lxy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Got an e-mail this morning from Redhat Network that a new kernel was available to solve this vulnerability. up2date got my machine patched hours before the /. post.

    If you're running Redhat, RHN is a valuable tool that no admin should be without.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  5. In other news... by AnriL · · Score: 5, Informative

    And for the hax0rs without a local shell, there's a recent samba instant-remote-r00t vulnerability. Get your patches while they're hot!

  6. Hole Found in Linux Server by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    (Server Room, DP) A hole was found in 'cypress', one of the principle Linux file, email and web servers of Brapco Corp early today. "We were dusting out around the back", said Mike Koyro, IT manager of Brapco, "and there it was, right by the power supply." The hole was quickly verified by other members of the IT dept as "really there". Speculation that it may be a screw hole was quickly dispelled when Frank, chief scripting officer, pointed out it didn't have any threads, and no screws were found loose anywhere nearby. "If someone got in here and drilled it during the night, they sure did a clean job - there's no shavings on the floor and the hole has no burrs" observed Mike. "It was either a professional job, with a sharp bit and machining oil, or a manufacturing defect". Calls to Linux Security were unanswered as of press time.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  7. ptrace() again? by misof · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is already at least the second problem somehow connected with ptrace() in the kernel. Kernels prior to 2.2.19 were vulnerable to a race-condition attack, that enabled local users to gain root privilegies. This was one of the most "famous" problems in last years and it's known as the execve/ptrace exploit.

    More details:

    This vulnerability exploits a race condition in the 2.2.x Linux kernel within the execve() system call. By predicting the child-process sleep() within execve(), an attacker can use ptrace() or similar mechanisms to subvert control of the child process. If the child process is setuid, the attacker can cause the child process to execute arbitrary code at an elevated privilege. There are also other known lesser security issues with Linux kernels prior to 2.2.19 which have been noted as fixed.
  8. Re:Linux disclosure procedures? by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know. Let's ask the U.S. Army what they think of Microsoft after the latest server hacking.

    --
    I do not have a signature
  9. To all the windows bashers... by EZmagz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Nobody's safe.

    I hate to say it, but this is kind of refreshing. This ins't a troll, so don't get me wrong...I'm a linux user myself. But after seeing the masses rip into MS yesterday when the thread about the IIS 5.0 hole was posted, I got a tad frustrated. Granted, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this just goes to show you that it's NOT just Microsoft that falls prey to holes and exploits. If it runs an OS, there's a chance it'll be cracked. Simple as that.

    Hell, the linux kernel is without a doubt one of the most audited open source projects out there, and this bug STILL didn't surface until 2.4.20. Of course, I applaud the speed and availibility of patches and workarounds to the bug. Just remember, it happens to everyone.

    --

    "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

  10. Re:I'm not going to patch. by siteTHREE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you considered the possibility of someone exploiting a non-root remote hole on your box and now having the ability to escalate themselves to root?

  11. Simple workaround by volkerdi · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you can't patch this right away, you can easily work around the hole. In order to be vulnerable, you need to have kmod enabled in the kernel, and /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe must contain the name of ANY VALID EXECUTABLE. It doesn't have to be /sbin/modprobe. Even /bin/false is vulnerable on this one.

    To prevent the exploit, give the kernel a bogus filename to use as modprobe, like this:

    cat /this/file/aint/there > /proc/sys/kernel/modprobe

    If you only use kmod to load modules at boot time, you might consider having this run after all your other init scripts, say in rc.local.

    Pat

  12. Re:Root Kit by Tom7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, but a good bet is to reinstall MD5-verified binaries of netstat and ps, and then look for suspicious processes or network servers. All of the rootkits I've seen work by running a hidden background process, or by modifying the kernel -- and you're replacing the kernel, so that should be ok.

  13. Exploitable? by Rain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Geez, only took /. 27-odd hours. Anyway.

    I tried writing an exploit for this flaw, but I couldn't get far enough to inject any code. I managed to ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, ...) a uid 0 modprobe (easy enough way to call kernel_thread()), but for some reason, the traced process isn't properly reparented, so all subsequent ptrace() calls fail. (Whenever you PTRACE_ATTACH to a process, it's supposed to become the child process of the tracer, and ptrace_check_attach (linux/kernel/ptrace.c) will return -ESRCH if this condition isn't met.)

    I'm not positive this is actually exploitable, but I'm not positive I took the correct approach, either. In any case, the most I've been able to do is spawn a slew of suspended root-owned processes. Not good, but not the end of the world, either. If someone has actually managed to exploit this flaw, I'd love to see some code so that I could see what I did wrong. Conversely, I'm willing to share the code I have upon request. I've only written code up to the current impasse, but once past this problem, the rest should be pretty trivial.

  14. The Smaller Folks by DarwinDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I second that opinion. However, many sysadmins have a responsibility for public servers (lots of ports open even with a firewall). As such these same sysadmins are smart and have a redundant box to do things like patch a system.

    In addition, some small businesses don't have the luxury of a secondary box or even an IT specialist that can put a machine through a high-load test for more than a few hours at a time -- let alone having to patch it at all!

    Ideally we would all have a RAID 10 array connected to four boxes each running a different OS. While some companies (!) may have the time and money for this, the small folks like mom-and-pop stores can't afford the expense of time or money.

    --
    $DEITY bless $NATION