Slashdot Mirror


Local Root Exploit in Linux 2.4 and 2.6

Anonymous Coattails writes "Summary from the advisory: 'Locally exploitable flaws have been found in the Linux binary format loaders' uselib() functions that allow local users to gain root privileges.'"

7 of 795 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright Poo Poo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Read down to the Credits on the link and you see this line:

    Credits:
    ========

    Paul Starzetz has identified the vulnerability and
    performed further research. COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND MODIFICATION OF
    INFORMATION PRESENTED HERE IS ALLOWED ONLY WITH EXPRESS PERMISSION OF
    ONE OF THE AUTHORS.

    Did I violate you buy hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v? Yeah copyrights stink even in free and open source realm. Oh yeah I guess Polly boy has something to put on his resume now as if someone else was going to steal his glory and get away with it.

  2. Re:*sits back* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Second, it'll probably be patched rather quickly.

    I can only laugh out loud. Read this story for example.

  3. Re:Failed on RHEL by ericzundel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Hmm. right after I posted that, it came through on the RH 9 box:
    ./elflbl -n2

    [+] SLAB cleanup
    child 1 VMAs 65527
    child 2 VMAs 65527
    child 3 VMAs 65527
    ...
    child 18 VMAs 63322
    [+] moved stack bfffb000, task_size=0xc0000000, map_base=0xbf800000
    [+] vmalloc area 0xdf800000 - 0xfedbb000
    Wait... \
    [+] race won maps=49205
    expanded VMA (0xbfffc000-0xffffe000)
    [!] try to exploit 0xe2d25000
    [+] gate modified ( 0xffec903c 0x0804ec00 )
    [+] exploited, uid=0

    sh-2.05b#
  4. Local Access is always a trump card by Delusional · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there ever a time when you can consider your systems secure against an attacker with physical access?

  5. Re:What, no remote exploit?!? by lakeland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Incidentially, the finding of exploits found in bind and sendmail has really slowed to a crawl.

    It seems that, even though they were written in different times and without security as the first concern, a sufficiently large number of bug fixes will eventually result in code that is almost as secure.

  6. isec.pl's guys rule by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isec.pl has done a lot for the open source world, they've found lots of vulnerabilities (which is good - vulnerabilities ARE like any other bug):

    Take a look at the impressive curriculum of those guys:
    d_path() truncating excessive long path name vulnerability
    Linux kernel do_brk() lacks argument bound checking
    Linux kernel do_mremap() local privilege escalation vulnerability
    Linux kernel do_mremap VMA limit local privilege escalation vulnerability
    Linux kernel setsockopt MCAST_MSFILTER integer overflow
    Linux kernel file offset pointer races
    Linux ELF loader vulnerabilities
    Linux kernel IGMP vulnerabilities
    Linux kernel scm_send local DoS
    Linux kernel uselib() privilege elevation


    Guess what, they're also the guys who discovered the mozilla hole diclosed today: Heap overflow in Mozilla Browser NNTP code

    Those guys are impressive. In particular, Paul Starzetz is the author in most of those kernel holes, along with a guy called Wojciech. They always contact the kernel maintainers before discosing the vulnerability, etc. Basically, they're having the same effect than a security audit. Except that they're doing it for free, so they deserve respect, I think. And yes, Linux is having too many kernel-level vulnerabilities. More than XP if I'm counting them right. Perhaps someone should offer a job to those guys so they can audit parts of the kernel better.


    (And I can understand that copyright policy - there're people who probably look at those announcements, ctrl+c and ctrl+v and they release their own announcement twisting dates claiming that they're the guys who found it first)

  7. Re:Distribution restrictions by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it just me, or is this mind-bogglingly stupid?

    It's irrelevant anyhow. If you didn't sign a contract to keep it secret, they have no grounds to gag you. They can copyright their exact words and can (and probably should*) control the distribution of those words, but copyright does not give them any protection of the facts contained within. And neither does anything else.

    For the same reason, when you are accidentally mailed something with one of those "you must delete this immediately if you are not the intended recipient", unless it is actually and literally classified, you have no obligations. It's just to scare people.

    The legal system has a ways to go before you can be obligated by an email out of the blue, or a random announcement on a webpage taking rights not granted to them by copyright but implementing no real access control (i.e., attempting to obligate you after you downloaded a page; it might work if you make it a condidion of reading but not just out of the blue, after the fact).

    *: Reputation is important. One of the reasons copyright should not be straight-out abolished is its usefulness in making sure that words are correctly attributed and can be quality controlled, a virtue you are so used to you may never even think about until it is gone.