Slashdot Mirror


Remote Exploit Discovered for OpenBSD

An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD is known for its security policies, and for its boast of "only one remote exploit in over 10 years". Well, make that two, because Core Security has found a remotely exploitable buffer overflow in the OpenBSD kernel. Upgrade your firewalls as soon as possible."

7 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Advisory Timeline by fv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a bit surprised that the summary didn't mention the rather interesting timeline in the Core advisory, which implies an attempted cover up. I don't know all the facts, so I'll let the document speak for itself:

    • 2007-02-20: First notification sent by Core.
    • 2007-02-20: Acknowledgement of first notification received from the OpenBSD team.
    • 2007-02-21: Core sends draft advisory and proof of concept code that demonstrates remote kernel panic.
    • 2007-02-26: OpenBSD team develops a fix and commits it to the HEAD branch of source tree.
    • 2007-02-26: OpenBSD team communicates that the issue is specific to OpenBSD. OpenBSD no longer uses the term "vulnerability" when referring to bugs that lead to a remote denial of service attack, as opposed to bugs that lead to remote control of vulnerable systems to avoid oversimplifying ("pablumfication") the use of the term.
    • 2007-02-26: Core email sent to OpenBSD team explaining that Core considers a remote denial of service a security issue and therefore does use the term "vulnerability" to refer to it and that although remote code execution could not be proved in this specific case, the possibility should not be discarded. Core requests details about the bug and if possible an analysis of why the OpenBSD team may or may not consider the bug exploitable for remote code execution.
    • 2007-02-28: OpenBSD team indicates that the bug results in corruption of mbuf chains and that only IPv6 code uses that mbuf code, there is no user data in the mbuf header fields that become corrupted and it would be surprising to be able to run arbitrary code using a bug so deep in the mbuf code. The bug simply leads to corruption of the mbuf chain.
    • 2007-03-05: Core develops proof of concept code that demonstrates remote code execution in the kernel context by exploiting the mbuf overflow.
    • 2007-03-05: OpenBSD team notified of PoC availability.
    • 2007-03-07: OpenBSD team commits fix to OpenBSD 4.0 and 3.9 source tree branches and releases a "reliability fix" notice on the project's website.
    • 2007-03-08: Core sends final draft advisory to OpenBSD requesting comments and official vendor fix/patch information.
    • 2007-03-09: OpenBSD team changes notice on the project's website to "security fix" and indicates that Core's advisory should reflect the requirement of IPv6 connectivity for a successful attack from outside of the local network. 2007-03-12: Advisory updates with fix and workaround information and with IPv6 connectivity comments from OpenBSD team. The "vendors contacted" section of the advisory is adjusted to reflect more accurately the nature of the communications with the OpenBSD team regarding this issue.
    • 2007-03-12: Workaround recommendations revisited. It is not yet conclusive that the "scrub in inet6" directive will prevent exploitation. It effectively stops the bug from triggering according to Core's tests but OpenBSD's source code inspection does not provide a clear understanding of why that happens. It could just be that the attack traffic is malformed in some other way that is not meaningful for exploiting the vulnerability (an error in the exploit code rather than an effective workaround?). The "scrub" workaround recommendation is removed from the advisory as precaution.
    • 2007-03-13: Core releases this advisory.

    -Fyodor
    Insecure.Org

    1. Re:Advisory Timeline by evilviper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      which implies an attempted cover up.

      Cover up? The OpenBSD team believed it was only a remote DoS vulnerability until proof of concept code was provided, and re-labeled it as such immediately.

      What part seems suspicious to you?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  2. Re:Doesn't matter how good a C programmer you are by Fnordulicious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even the on the Lisp Machines the "kernel" code was implemented with manual memory management. There's a very simple reason for this. How do you implement the memory manager? It's a chicken and egg problem, so the lowest levels always have to do memory management by hand.

    Also, it's less efficient to simply use one heap for everything. Instead, an OS kernel written in a language with automatic memory management usually maintains large blocks of memory for the various tasks to work in, like an area for packet construction, an area for I/O buffers, etc. The automatic allocator and GC are told which area to work in, and then create or delete stuff in that area as needed.

    So no, it's not generally reasonable to implement the lower levels of any OS with automatic memory management. You're free to try, though.

  3. Re:pablumfication by chenjeru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While 'pablumification' does seem to be a newly made word, the root 'pablum' is a bland children's porridge. The ever-handy Wikipedia has this to say:

    _In lower case, the word pablum is often used to describe anything bland, oversimplified and generally unsatisfying, especially a work of literature or speech. This usage is thought to derive from the cereal. Today, the word pablum and the original Latin word pabulum are often used interchangeably. In Canada, pablum remains as a generic reference to any instant baby cereal.

    _The phrase 'pablum puking', when used in political speech, is used to describe one who seems to lack the ability to digest simple logic or common sense. For example, someone who holds forth the argument that children should be afforded the freedom to play in traffic could rightly be refered to as a 'pablum puking idiot'. ..thus, the poster's creation of the word in reference to oversimplification.

    --
    Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  4. Wrong... by Phil+John · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...it's roughly 5.67137278 × 10^28 IP's per person

    Or, as a recent Ars article put it (much better than I ever could):

    To put this into perspective: there are currently 130 million people born each year. If this number of births remains the same until the sun goes dark in 5 billion years, and all of these people live to be 72 years old, they can all have 53 times the address space of the IPv4 Internet for every second of their lives. Let nobody accuse the IETF of being frugal this time around.
    --
    I am NaN
  5. Re:WHOA WTF by Curtman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You Linux pups seem to think bugs are normal events.

    When was the last time a remote root exploit was found in the Linux kernel?
  6. There (probably) was one in November 2004 by tetromino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    See http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-30-1; something like 7 vulnerabilities were found in the kernel's smbfs driver which could be used for remote DoS and potentially for remote root, at least on some configurations (the Linux community decided to fix the bugs instead of waiting for exploit code to appear). There may have been other remote root exploits since then -- I haven't been keeping track.