Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel 2.6 Local Root Exploit

aquatix writes "This local root exploit (Debian, Ubuntu) seems to work everywhere I try it, as long as it's a Linux kernel version 2.6.17 to 2.6.24.1. If you don't trust your users (which you shouldn't), better compile a new kernel without vmsplice." Here is millw0rm's proof-of-concept code.

586 comments

  1. Beauty of OSS by bigtomrodney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think I'm the first of us to say "Ah shit".

    On the other hand though this is the beauty of open source. The problem is now known so I'm sure a fix is already on the way.

    --
    I never get used to these constant resurrections
    1. Re:Beauty of OSS by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And even if it isn't on its way (and while it isn't here) you can still get the source and remove the problematic part if you don't need it. Try recompiling Flash or some other commercial software without the section that has the exploit in ;)

      .

      Note: The above assumes that the kernel compiles, which may not always go as smoothly or be as you'd like. That doesn't change the fact that it is theoretically possible, though.

    2. Re:Beauty of OSS by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

      And even if it isn't on its way (and while it isn't here) you can still get the source and remove the problematic part if you don't need it. Try recompiling Flash or some other commercial software without the section that has the exploit in ;) Well, you could always just enter a blank CDR in the drive. I'd say that's about as close as you are going to get to "remove the problematic part" from Windows.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Beauty of OSS by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand though this is the beauty of open source. The problem is now known so I'm sure a fix is already on the way. Of course, the problem may also have been known six months ago. Not that that differs from closed source, but I don't see the openness of the code as a particular benefit in this case. The real benefit seems to be that when someone releases something as open source and they put their name on it, they're more inclined to be responsive to problems and provide quick fixes than when it's just some company's product and the developer's reputation is shielded by the company.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Beauty of OSS by neomunk · · Score: 1

      "Ah, shit" is correct. I would like to add a gracious 'Thank You nenolod' for not being a tool and keeping this little nugget to yourself.

    5. Re:Beauty of OSS by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Looking at the comments at the top of the code, it's described as "quite old code" (assuming you believe the author).

    6. Re:Beauty of OSS by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I said it when I saw the description of vmsplice() for the first time. I guess I was right.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:Beauty of OSS by fuzzix · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the other hand though this is the beauty of open source. The problem is now known so I'm sure a fix is already on the way.

      Or already here...
      This appeared to work...
    8. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Wow... 3 posts before some twat turned it into a platform for bashing Windows.

      Pretty good. That's 2 more posts than I expected when I read the headline...

    9. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is now known so I'm sure a fix is already on the way. Holy shit, no kidding - the form of an exploit which fixes the bug live in the kernel mem.
      nobody$ ./exploit
      [..]
      [+] mmap: 0xb7f29000 .. 0xb7f5b000
      [+] root
      root# ^D

      nobody$ ./disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable
      [..]
      Exploit gone!
      nobody$ ./exploit
      [+] mmap: 0xb7f34000 .. 0xb7f66000
      [-] vmsplice
      nobody$ no root for me anymore!


      By Morten Hustveit:
      "a modification of the exploit that finds the address of sys_vmsplice in the
      kernel (using /proc/kallsyms) and replaces the first byte with a RET instruction
      (using mmap of /dev/kmem)" from
      http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464953#14

    10. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      The smugness of these OSS fanboys just makes me want to use Windows ME so badly.

      And smack them in the face.

    11. Re:Beauty of OSS by pizzach · · Score: 1

      There is a VERY real benefit of open source code in this case. People compiling the kernel is not uncommon. With the tools accompanying the kernel you can skip compiling the offensive parts with out touching any code. You can't do that with something closed source.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    12. Re:Beauty of OSS by AQuaTiX · · Score: 1

      Marco d'Itri has a dirty-but-working work around [hot fix] at http://blog.bofh.it/id_131. Compile the kernel module, load it and you should be fine.

    13. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness the thread started off toward that bias.

    14. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, I could travel back in time to Sun Feb 10, '08 04:32.5 PM and stop you from submitting this post.

    15. Re:Beauty of OSS by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      I don't see a whole lot of difference between the word smugness and the word confidence. I, as an affected Linux user, am fully confident this will be fixed before the bug is exploited against me. Of course, I do trust all my users, since all my users (me) know the root password anyway, but that's beside the point.

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    16. Re:Beauty of OSS by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Shit no amd64 support...

    17. Re:Beauty of OSS by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that's the drawback of a monolithic kernel. You need to recompile to add or remove offensive parts. And those offensive parts aren't sandboxed.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    18. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      LULZ jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c

    19. Re:Beauty of OSS by g-to-the-o-to-the-g · · Score: 1

      There is a patch available now. See the Gentoo bugzilla for more: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209460 Also, you can try this if you don't want to recompile (it will disable vmsplice): http://omploader.org/vY2w5

    20. Re:Beauty of OSS by raynet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Though you can compile many parts as modules and add or remove them at will.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    21. Re:Beauty of OSS by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      And that's the .. um .. beauty of open source code. Not like Microsoft.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    22. Re:Beauty of OSS by caluml · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think I'm the first of us to say "Ah shit". No, you are, you really are! Google confirms it!

      Your search - "Ah shit" - did not match any documents.
    23. Re:Beauty of OSS by ronark · · Score: 1

      If you have the know how. Comments like yours, while they do point out a nice feature of open source software, are not attractive to averages users. Most people will never compile anything themselves, and don't want to.

    24. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy probably used some old exploit code and tweaked it for the new hole.

    25. Re:Beauty of OSS by El+Lobo · · Score: 1, Troll
      And **how** in the world can you be sure that the thousand of users using this versiuon kernel:

      1) Know about the bug

      2) Can change/recompile the kernel

      3) Even know what a compiler is

      4) Even care to fix it thinking about "I'm using Linuzz, I'm invencible"

      That's the beauty of close Source. One Live Update service to fix them all. Not trolling. Just not everything is black and white. There are a LOT of shades of gray there in between.

      --
      It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    26. Re:Beauty of OSS by empaler · · Score: 1

      Do you trust all the programs you run on your computer in normal user mode? They could also exploit the security hole.

    27. Re:Beauty of OSS by Raideen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And **how** in the world can you be sure that the thousand of users using this versiuon kernel:

      1) Know about the bug

      2) Can change/recompile the kernel

      3) Even know what a compiler is

      4) Even care to fix it thinking about "I'm using Linuzz, I'm invencible"

      That's the beauty of close Source. One Live Update service to fix them all. Not trolling. Just not everything is black and white. There are a LOT of shades of gray there in between.


      The truth is that you can't. The thing is that you don't have that guarantee with closed source either. The difference is that open source gives a lot more options to those who can and even those who can't (by virtue that someone who can can supply a pre-compiled fix). Open source isn't perfect. It just has some serious advantages in this particular type of situation.
    28. Re:Beauty of OSS by wcpalmer · · Score: 1

      I've been coding on Linux for quite a few years (just getting into the kernel-level stuff now), and I had never heard of this function before.

      However, bricks = shat.

    29. Re:Beauty of OSS by surgen · · Score: 1

      Having the knowledge on how to patch it yourself just allows you to secure yourself before the distribution has an official update available that can be easily installed. Would you rather fix a vulnerability today or wait until Patch Tuesday? I don't think that you can really draw a this line between closed and open source. As you say, its not black and white; to me it seems that it is more about the update tool that ships with the operating system. Windows automatic update is nice in this regard because it nags the user until they enable it so the user will always have the latest patches. However, windows is by no means the only operating system to have security updates, when an update is available in my distro's repository it won't be troublesome at all for me to install.

    30. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also theoretically possible to modify a compiled, closed-source program, you know.

    31. Re:Beauty of OSS by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      It doesn't fix the bug, it just does the workaround without requiring recompilation of the kernel.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    32. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is that you can't. The thing is that you don't have that guarantee with closed source either. I think you missed his point. If it was an exploitable Windows box on the net then it would also be fetching updates from Windows Update every second Tuesday. All machines you could reach to exploit would be fixed in five weeks tops. Can you say the same for Linux?

    33. Re:Beauty of OSS by yidele · · Score: 1

      What theory is that? The tinfoil hat brigadier's time travel conjecture?
      I theory you should know better.

        ----
      "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is"

    34. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, because after running this exploit-fixing exploit my ubuntu 7.10 box went down. I suggest not using this to fix anything.

    35. Re:Beauty of OSS by colmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any programs run by a normal user will be run in "normal user mode." The exception being suid programs, which are few and far between (and aren't things like webbrowsers). As to code on my system using a malicious exploit, especially one that has made headlines? Yes, I do trust packages from Debian enough to be fairly certain that those in the stable repositories are that safe.

      See, we don't download binaries from websites and click "yes" until the installer shuts up. (Though I hate to say it but there are some utilities and install scripts coming out of the Ubuntu community that are dangerously close to that kind of installation paradigm.)

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    36. Re:Beauty of OSS by mjbkinx · · Score: 1

      There's also a gentoo-sources-2.6.24-r1 ebuild already.

    37. Re:Beauty of OSS by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Technically, I can retrofit a Ford Pinto to prevent the gas tank problem, but if I'm not an automative engineer that is really not a practical solution to a design flaw. Less than 1% of computer users are computer programmers. "Fix it yourself" is not a feasible solution for everything.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    38. Re:Beauty of OSS by jrockway · · Score: 1

      The point is that someone else can do this on their behalf.

      --
      My other car is first.
    39. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux blows.

      Do you have the patch for that? My wife has been slacking off in that department.

    40. Re:Beauty of OSS by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Informative

      disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable causes kernel oops on Debian Etch with kernel 2.6.18-3-xen-686

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    41. Re:Beauty of OSS by YaroMan86 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point. If it was an exploitable Windows box on the net then it would also be fetching updates from Windows Update every second Tuesday. All machines you could reach to exploit would be fixed in five weeks tops. Can you say the same for Linux?
      In the case of Linux and many other open source projects well maintained, it has been known to happen within hours of the discovery of the exploit.
    42. Re:Beauty of OSS by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I don't see a whole lot of difference between the word smugness and the word confidence.
      It ain't braggin' if you can do it.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    43. Re:Beauty of OSS by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny
      Did you follow http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/5092?

      Allow me to past in the first couple of lines:

      /*
      * jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c
      *
      Apparently, milw0rm does have a patch for that.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    44. Re:Beauty of OSS by nthcolumnist · · Score: 1

      Okay, not a troll - just a sap. Bar this you are wrong on every point: We don't have to know about any of those things. We'll get an automatic update, won't have to wait until some random Tuesday and it will work. We're not smug at all - one of the reasons people move to 'nix is because of security concerns. Sure this exploit is pretty bad as it renders systems vulnerable locally i.e. Windows normal mode of operation - the most ubiquitous closed source. And yes it is black and white. Closed == BAD, Open == GOOD. PS You get your live updates quicker if you plug directly to interweb

    45. Re:Beauty of OSS by dsd · · Score: 1

      2.6.24-r1 only solves 1 of the 2 vmsplice security issues
      you need 2.6.24-r2 to solve the 2nd one

      if you're still running 2.6.23 then you want 2.6.23-r8 which also solves both

    46. Re:Beauty of OSS by mjbkinx · · Score: 1

      ...and I had just switched to 2.6.24-r1 the minute before reading your reply. Now there is indeed a 2.6.24-r2... Sigh... emerge --sync...

    47. Re:Beauty of OSS by LizardKing · · Score: 4, Funny

      However, bricks = shat.

      Come on now, that simply assigns shat to bricks (and that's some nasty use of the comma operator to separate statements). I think you meant:

      while (exploitable) {
      Bricks *bricks = malloc(sizeof(Bricks));
      shit(bricks);
      sleep(1);
      }

      Note that we don't have to dispose of the bricks we shit, as that's taken care of elsewhere. And of course, if we all still wrote VAX assembler we would be able to optimise this by using the SHTBRCKS instruction.

    48. Re:Beauty of OSS by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      But with OSS it only takes one person to fix it and then the fix will spread like wildfire.

    49. Re:Beauty of OSS by Morten+Hustveit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable causes kernel oops on Debian Etch with kernel 2.6.18-3-xen-686

      Did the exploit work by itself? It would be interesting to know whether the exploit or the workaround crashes the machine. The exploit (without my patch) is known to crash some machines.

    50. Re:Beauty of OSS by theashman · · Score: 1

      Please watch the juvenile language, that just decreases the quality and reputation of the site. Open source is great, but it doesn't increase security. Yes, flaws can be found by the good guys and they will notify the creator, but the bad guys can find it too, and they won't tell anyone. The security linux enjoys is because it is 1% market share, so bad guys don't care about it. There are flaws in both open source and closed code, but I would say that closed code is better for security.

    51. Re:Beauty of OSS by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Of course, the problem may also have been known six months ago. Not that that differs from closed source, but I don't see the openness of the code as a particular benefit in this case. The real benefit seems to be that when someone releases something as open source and they put their name on it, they're more inclined to be responsive to problems and provide quick fixes than when it's just some company's product and the developer's reputation is shielded by the company.

      The benefit of it being open code is that we aren't reliant upon the maintainer/author to fix the code. Anyone can view it in order to submit a patch. In many cases, the code being open also aids in finding the exploit because of peer review.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    52. Re:Beauty of OSS by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did the exploit work by itself?

      I couldn't get the bare exploit code to compile.

      The 'workaround' compiled and resulted in the oops. It did not get as far as showing whether the kernel was exploitable or not.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    53. Re:Beauty of OSS by nomadic · · Score: 1

      But with OSS it only takes one person to fix it and then the fix will spread like wildfire.

      Unless the kernel maintainers fail to propagate it. Then every user has to make the decision as to whether they're going to trust some anonymous coder who says his patch will fix it, and not, say, create a backdoor to their computer.

    54. Re:Beauty of OSS by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      And unlike some other OSs, we knew about it before it was a major problem.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    55. Re:Beauty of OSS by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The Gentoo guys already have a patch and its clean and simple.
      You cant really hide a backdoor in something as simple as a permissions check.

    56. Re:Beauty of OSS by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      Nor do normal users really care about this kind of exploit in general. This information is useful for site administrators who actually can do something about the problem, where it matters.

    57. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Please watch the juvenile language, that just decreases the quality and reputation of the site.

      You must be new here.

    58. Re:Beauty of OSS by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      You know, you instantly lose all respect the moment you say things like "Linuzz" or "Abble"

      PS: Before I'm accused of bias, same goes for M$ and the like

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    59. Re:Beauty of OSS by Slim+Backwater · · Score: 2, Informative

      Troll?

      Anyway, you do realize what local root exploit is don't you? A normal user mode program could run this and gain root access. Say you had SSH running under uid for nobody, Now normally a hole in that would mean that the cracker just has access equiv to 'nobody', but with this, 'nobody', can become root.

      Or a more likely scenario, say you were running a browser with a remote code exploit. Normally the browser would only have access as your user account, but with this now your browser has root access. ._.

    60. Re:Beauty of OSS by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Normally the browser would only have access as your user account,
      Which it can use to modify your menus so that next time you click that "root terminal" entry the parameters to gksu are a bit different.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    61. Re:Beauty of OSS by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      If it was an exploitable Windows box on the net then it would also be fetching updates from Windows Update every second Tuesday.
      that leaves plenty of time for it to get 0wned. And that assumes MS gets a patch out soon after the exploit hits the wild (they don't always).

      And not everyone runs windows with automatic updates on, nor does everyone run versions of windows that are still getting security updates.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    62. Re:Beauty of OSS by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      exploit works in CentOS 5's 2.6.18-8.el5, but the disable_vmsplice_if_exploitable crashes it

    63. Re:Beauty of OSS by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What are the downsides/risks of using that fix/workaround? What functionality does it break or restrict?

    64. Re:Beauty of OSS by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      I said it when I saw the description of vmsplice() for the first time. I guess I was right. Got a pointer to where you said it?
      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    65. Re:Beauty of OSS by colmore · · Score: 1

      No this was my point:

      I realize that with a local root exploit a piece of software could use the exploit to do something nasty as root. However, as all applications on a typical users system have been vetted by a distribution team, and code is only going into those applications with the approval of project managers, the chance of a linux user winding up with a dangerous application on their system is diminishingly small.

      This is in contrast to many Windows user's environments, which typically have a dozen or so, at least, closed source utilities downloaded from various points around the internet.

      While it's by no means impossible, it takes a lot of effort to execute arbitrary code on a linux machine to which you don't have login access, at any level of access.

      Now on a server that allows for anonymous telnet or ssh login, yes, this might be a serious problem. But it's very unlikely to be the kind of issue for desktop machines as similar exploits have been for Windows.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    66. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a pointer to where you said it? 0x3A28213A
    67. Re:Beauty of OSS by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      The Gentoo guys already have a patch and its clean and simple. You cant really hide a backdoor in something as simple as a permissions check.

      Well, maybe not for the majority of Slashdot readers, but for someone like my mom...hell--if you send her an email that says "open this really cool greeting card", she will. Even if Hotmail tells you it is a virus.

      I know the exact train of thought. It's "My friend jane would never send me a virus".

      So while it may not be difficult to spot some wayward code if you are a geek, it might not be if you are a 65 year old hippie who knows almost nothing about computers.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    68. Re:Beauty of OSS by Dan+Farina · · Score: 4, Informative

      > The security linux enjoys is because it is 1% market share, so bad guys don't care about it.

      This is probably true when it comes to malware targeting grandma, (note: you don't need a root exploit to do plenty of bad things, like install a keylogger on a user's session; IMO things like browsers should one day be relegated to another user as well) but you don't you think that people would be interested in breaking sendmail or BIND and the overwhelmingly UNIX (and increasingly GNU/Linux) systems that they run on? (They have in the past, many times in fact...)

      I think this position understates the incentives to attack Linux, because, quite frankly, virtually everything actually important infrastructure-wise runs on a UNIX-alike nowadays (VMS holdouts withstanding), and now it seems clear that with the possible exception of Solaris that all UNIX-alikes except Linux are in their death throes.

      > There are flaws in both open source and closed code, but I would say that closed code is better for security.

      I disagree. With closed source there is substantially less research and review that goes on. Important security bugs that are thought to not be "in the wild" can be swept under the rug indefinitely because they don't jive with business goals of the owning company. In the case of open source development any agent with an axe to grind (and oftentimes clients to reassure) can make it their priority to get the damn thing fixed.

      I think an axiom people have when they hold security-by-obscurity as a credible advantage is a defeatist regarding the nature of bugs: one *can* write a nearly-correct code; see qmail, TeX, dovecot, djbdns, and OpenSSL. It just takes time, effort, and sound engineering (which may include the limitation of scope, something that is hard to do in product-oriented firms). Linux 2.4 may be reaching this point; that's probably why NASA is considering deploying it on things that are actually important.

    69. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be completely fair, the openness of the code means I'm not at the mercy of my vendor: if I want to invest in the resources (by my own time or the time of others) I get the problem fixed NOW. If that's the priority; the priority of the vendor be damned.

      So the openness matters a great deal, assuming you have the resources---monetary or otherwise---to fix the problem yourself before the lumbering behemoth of your provider (free or paid for) gets on it.

      I run into stuff like this all the time. When the problem is based on open source software (BSD or Linux, or maybe a 3rd party php/perl/ruby script, whatever) we can react quite quickly to a known exploit if we feel it's necessary.

      On the other hand, our "windows guy" has a few unpalatable options when a known exploit is found in his systems:
      a) he rolls back to before the introduction of the problem (if he can, balancing various security evils)
      b) employs other measure to try and mitigate the problem (firewalling etc....most of which are already in place)
      c) hopes it's patched by the next release cycle. (most common solution)

      Needless to say, our windows guys looses a lot of sleep.

      At worst, we end up realizing the fix is beyond our means. Still, thanks to having access to the code---both by us and the people who found the problem--- we end up understanding *exactly* what the problem is. As a result, if forced to, we resort to steps a and b but from a much better informed position.

      Let me break it down this way:
      Our windows guy is allowed to throw up his hands and say "Who knows!". No one holds it against him.
      For any of the rest of us (working with open source software), to say such a thing would be inexcusable (at least to me).

    70. Re:Beauty of OSS by sowth · · Score: 1

      And if the people running the project act like that on a regular basis, then their project will usually be forked and a lot of people will jump to the new project. Take the XFree86 to Xorg situation for example.

    71. Re:Beauty of OSS by paca · · Score: 1

      This workaround does not work on Ubuntu 7.10 on amd64.

    72. Re:Beauty of OSS by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I would very much like you to use Windows ME. You'd be too busy with the bsod's to troll /.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    73. Re:Beauty of OSS by paca · · Score: 1

      Uups.. Yes it does, if I run it as user.

    74. Re:Beauty of OSS by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      "Ah, shit" is correct. I would like to add a gracious 'Thank You nenolod' for not being a tool and keeping this little nugget to yourself. Good point, however releasing the exploit without notifying kernel developers in advance is hardly praiseworthy.
      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    75. Re:Beauty of OSS by fd0man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, really?

      Did you forget about assignment versus equality, perhaps? http://kerneltrap.org/node/1584

    76. Re:Beauty of OSS by stavros-59 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point. If it was an exploitable Windows box on the net then it would also be fetching updates from Windows Update every second Tuesday. All machines you could reach to exploit would be fixed in five weeks tops. Can you say the same for Linux?

      There are many Windows patches that take a lot longer than 5 weeks. Just one critical exploit which had been in all versions of Windows since 3.11 was in the wild before the details were published in December 2005 http://secunia.com/advisories/18255/ was first patched by 5th January 2006 after several free download patches were made available to users by volunteers due to the severity of the exploit and the fact that it was already being executed in the wild. A further hotfix was released on 28th February 2006 because the first hotfix pushed out didn't negate the exploit. Just one of the exploits that the original Gromozon used to infect large numbers of computers in 2006. To be fair Gromozon checked for large numbers of known exploits and even larger numbers of unpatched machines.

      There are many, many more. Good Luck depending on Microsoft's hotfix schedule. A five week gap is more than long enough to allow the vulnerability to be exploited on millions of machines. They have an appalling record when dealing with hotfixes other than those that relate to WGA or their own update processes.

    77. Re:Beauty of OSS by Builder · · Score: 1

      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

      You say that like it's a good thing... I guess you don't live in the UK :(

      We have more and more laws created as a response to the Daily Mail or Sun headlines... Laws that don't actually address the real problem, and just make for a more restrictive society, and all because the government is media run.

    78. Re:Beauty of OSS by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > And **how* in the world can you be sure...

      Ubuntu and recent debian ship with a thing called update-manager, which looks for updates and notifies their presence to the user which can install them (if he has proper privileges). You have no point here.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    79. Re:Beauty of OSS by donaldm · · Score: 1

      It's also theoretically possible to modify a compiled, closed-source program, you know. It is not just theoretically possible it is actually very easy to do except it would be very difficult to make the binary do anything other than what the binary was supposed to do in the first place. Usually root kits normally just replace system binaries with their own binary, however that means if this has happened you already have a compromised system, hence the reason for backups.
      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    80. Re:Beauty of OSS by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      Dats not the point. The point is that each and every one of those parts have no isolation between each other, so a malignant part can wreck the whole kernel.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
    81. Re:Beauty of OSS by arivanov · · Score: 1

      At the time I said it in private conversation and I did not put it in writing. I was looking at future features that may affect the product which the company I worked for was doing at the time. So probably I would not have been allowed to comment on my findings anyway.

      I was not the only one though. If you look at the discussion around the introduction of vmsplice() and the ensuing flamewar after Linux flamed COW and FreeBSD into a crisp at the time a number of people pointed out that making vmsplice() secure will be a very entertaining proposition. Anything else aside COW is a devil we know while this is a devil which is yet to show itself.

      Can't give you exact pointers, but the argument was definitely raised as a part of the COW vs vmsplice() flamewar ^W discussion...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    82. Re:Beauty of OSS by Isauq · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny you should mention that. This bug was fixed in a commit yesterday afternoon (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/10/8).

      --
      RTFM
    83. Re:Beauty of OSS by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Whereas if you had one of those trendy microkernel thingies, you'd basically end up giving userspace programs unfettered access to hardware. Remind me again, how that is better than performing basic sanity checking within kernel space?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    84. Re:Beauty of OSS by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The point in favor of OSS is that (1) there are several people, independent of the original author and independent of one another, who are in a position to discover any potential exploit; (2) whoever discovers an exploit has no good reason not to announce it straight away; and (3) discoveries tend to happen in parallel anyway (vide the almost simultaneous invention of the filament light bulb by Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison, or the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Grey, inter alia); so even if the first person to discover an exploit doesn't announce it, the second person to discover it might well announce it.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    85. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course with thousands of eyes religiously checking every line of code, these old bugs are quickly spotted and squashed. In fact they would be fixed before they even existed. Splat. Not like closed source where they hang around for ages (deliberately not fixed) and wait for someone to accidentally discover them taking over your computer and stealing all your money and stuff. Not like that at all.
      Just the other day, my granny and her friend was browsing the code for Firefox (no different to millions of other grannys I know) and commented that it was no surprise what a bloated memory leaking piece of shite it was. I told the old duffers to just! shut! up! Its the most bug free piece of software ever and anyway what do you expect for free. Just because she got her wireless card to work, she thinks she's an expert!

    86. Re:Beauty of OSS by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

      According to this Linux Kernel Timeline, 2.6.17 was released in June of 2006. So I'd assume, as someone else pointed out, that the author re-worked an older exploit payload to work with this new vulnerability. I can't imagine code written in 2006 would be considered "too old to compile". Though that doesn't help when you consider that the exploit could have been around for almost 2 years now.

      -metric

    87. Re:Beauty of OSS by Artuir · · Score: 1

      I had a fix for this in the first few minutes of it being made known: apt-get install windows xp Though, seriously. Every time some bug comes up in windows I see a plethora of you bearded Linux geeks raising a stink of "lolol install lunix it fixes everatheing!!!". Windows geeks, it's time to get revenge!

    88. Re:Beauty of OSS by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      I think this position understates the incentives to attack Linux, because, quite frankly, virtually everything actually important infrastructure-wise runs on a UNIX-alike nowadays (VMS holdouts withstanding), and now it seems clear that with the possible exception of Solaris that all UNIX-alikes except Linux are in their death throes.

      And of all those, no one is more dead than *BSD!

    89. Re:Beauty of OSS by somersault · · Score: 1

      Smugness is when you're a smug git about it. Confidence is usually quieter and less abrasive.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    90. Re:Beauty of OSS by msormune · · Score: 1

      Yes, but with closed source there are far less people making those security bugs in the first place... The key point is indeed sound engineering as you put it. Too bad it is the second thing that OS projects usually lack, with the first one being sound documentation.

    91. Re:Beauty of OSS by upside · · Score: 1

      echo '/usr/local/bin/disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable' >> /etc/rc.local

      See Boss, I fixed it. Next!

      (j/k)

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    92. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. My point is, though, that while there's certainly a significant difference in the actual difficulty, the "it's theoretically possible to patch it" argument works for both open and closed source, and that for most users they're comparably feasible (that is, usually not at all).

      Though looking at the "patch" talked about elsewhere in the discussion, it looks like this would've been easy to fix (well, to the degree that it fixes it) on a closed-source system as well.

    93. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do your parents know you're using their computer?

    94. Re:Beauty of OSS by arevos · · Score: 1

      Too bad it is the second thing that OS projects usually lack, with the first one being sound documentation. In my experience, proprietary projects usually lack both these things as well.
    95. Re:Beauty of OSS by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that exploit caused 2.6.20.3 kernel on a server that I maintain to become unstable and eventually hang (and before that happened, exploit crashed with segmentation fault but did not run a shell). I have installed a 2.6.24 kernel with patches mentioned in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/190587 , and the problem disappeared, exploit harmlessly exits.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    96. Re:Beauty of OSS by chrishillman · · Score: 0
      Exactly! Think of the equation from Fight Club...

      should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field (A) multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B) then multiply the result by the average out of court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of the recall, we don't do one. At least that is where I get all my business skills, like all of you actually took business management classes.
    97. Re:Beauty of OSS by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      OTOH, "most people" don't administrate systems, or have to worry about local users escalating themselves to root.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    98. Re:Beauty of OSS by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      The solution IMO is to limit the size of the media and ensure diverse competitors.

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    99. Re:Beauty of OSS by Svartormr · · Score: 1

      Whereas if you had one of those trendy microkernel thingies, you'd basically end up giving userspace programs unfettered access to hardware. Remind me again, how that is better than performing basic sanity checking within kernel space? Because the userspace driver *doesn't* have to have unfettered access to all the hardware. It can have a memory map that only allows it to access the hardware it drives. And it can't change the memory map. Or access other components memory. So if it has errors, they can only affect its own hardware and/or crash the driver. And makes analysis of problems a lot simpler.
    100. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a particular benefit? I believe that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" principle stands perfectly. Every person in contact with the source code adds to the possibility of unearthing a bug. Closed source has no such benefit, and must formally test its products.

      The big question is whether the diffused review of open source is superior to the focused review of formal testing in closed source.

      This begs the question of "how good is a closed source software testing?" Again, we cannot answer this because not only the source is closed, but also its engineering process.

    101. Re:Beauty of OSS by Igarden2 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I didn't hate Windows ME. I had very little problem with it. Then again, I didn't change programs or tinker much. It just worked. Was I lucky or something? I now use Suse. Some things are flaky. I hate dependency hell. Yeah, I kind of miss Windows ME. I just don't miss the "security update of the week,or day,or minute" rat race. For now, I'll stick with linux.
      What could go wrong?

      --
      Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
    102. Re:Beauty of OSS by cs02rm0 · · Score: 1

      and now it seems clear that with the possible exception of Solaris that all UNIX-alikes except Linux are in their death throes

      Even with the BSD lot aside, the OSX nuts are going to pull your hair out for that one.

    103. Re:Beauty of OSS by XenoPhage · · Score: 3, Funny

      So while it may not be difficult to spot some wayward code if you are a geek, it might not be if you are a 65 year old hippie who knows almost nothing about computers. What does RMS have to do with this?
      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
    104. Re:Beauty of OSS by gbrandt · · Score: 1

      You forgot to check if you malloc was successful.

    105. Re:Beauty of OSS by mpoer · · Score: 1

      Debian released a fix for Etch systems before 9AM-EST this morning.

      So run to a friend's house, get root with this exploit, and run "aptitude update && aptitude upgrade" for him.

    106. Re:Beauty of OSS by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Yes, but ask any programmer and I'd guess about 99.9% (or more) would tell you that it is easier to modify the source and recompile (open source) rather than hack at some collection of binary executables and libraries using a hex-editor.

      Hell, I've worked on simple things (structured data files for Dawn of War) and even that isn't hugely clear when it gets to binary.

    107. Re:Beauty of OSS by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      it didn't work ..hangs the kernel if run as a regular user or outputs a bunch of jibberish if run as root. If the exploit code is run as a regular user after running this hotfix it also hangs the system.

    108. Re:Beauty of OSS by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can shit null pointers, too.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    109. Re:Beauty of OSS by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      Theory or not, the fact that it's still there, and we've all read about it means that you didn't! (Nor did anyone else!)

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    110. Re:Beauty of OSS by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it fails then he dumps core, which may be an acceptable alternative.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    111. Re:Beauty of OSS by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      ...as all applications on a typical users system have been vetted by a distribution team, and code is only going into those applications with the approval of project managers, the chance of a linux user winding up with a dangerous application on their system is diminishingly small. There's more to it than that. The officially installed software isn't the problem. It isn't just "a linux user" with a problem. It is every linux system whether that means a big server or system with one user account OR any system with any hole in anything running on that system. Anyone who was given or is stealing user-level access to a system could put a program onto that system and become root.

      sdb
    112. Re:Beauty of OSS by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And I'm told it's already in the Debian Etch (stable) tree. Sid (unstable) is expected to have it soon. I don't know when testing would get it. Usually no less than a week after Sid, but if this were seen as sufficiently important they could bend the rules.

      Presumably Ubuntu, etc. also have this en route already. (I'd worry more, but I'm the only user of my machine...so the "other users" are system processes (Apache, etc. I don't mean core system processes.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    113. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, well I still run the 2.4 kernel on most of my production systems. I was thinking about upgrading, but now I think I will leave it alone a few more months.

    114. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? General relativity allows time travel - just make a very big, very heavy cylinder and spin it really fast (though not known-impossibly so). You may have meant to reference the Hawking chronology (sometimes "causality") protection conjecture, which postulates that when you try to do time-machiney things like that, some quantum gravity effect acting as a correction to relativity prevents it actually working.

      I _think_ you can't go back in time to before the spacetime-warping magic cylinder was spun up to operating speed, but that's not a problem in _theory_ either: "just" find an alien-built or naturally occuring instance of the structure.

      Heavy evidence for GR being not quite right is that our world isn't swarming with human and/or alien time-travellers becoming their own grandparents for laughs. Of course, this is hilarious - for once, if some UFO time-travel kooks are _right_, it would be heavy evidence that conventional physics is _right_ :-).

    115. Re:Beauty of OSS by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      If you look at the discussion around the introduction of vmsplice() and the ensuing flamewar after Linux flamed COW and FreeBSD into a crisp at the time a number of people pointed out that making vmsplice() secure will be a very entertaining proposition. Anything else aside COW is a devil we know while this is a devil which is yet to show itself.

      Can't give you exact pointers, but the argument was definitely raised as a part of the COW vs vmsplice() flamewar ^W discussion... Well, you do not get to say I told you so this time, the hole was just a simple failure to check that the caller has permission to access the target address. Not a fundamental design problem, just a missing check, and not grounds for passing judgment on the merits of the design.

      I still do not know whether splice is a good design approach or not, but I would s
      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    116. Re:Beauty of OSS by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      You say that like it's a good thing... I guess you don't live in the UK :(

      I don't think its a good thing.

      I did live in the UK until it became a media-run police-state.

      Modern, western 'democracies' would more be more aptly named 'mediacracies'

      Rule by media. Thats what they've got.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    117. Re:Beauty of OSS by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      Any relation to Jack Shit (aka Jack Schitt).
      http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm

    118. Re:Beauty of OSS by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looking at the comments at the top of the code, it's described as "quite old code" (assuming you believe the author). I believe the author, but I think he was referring to the boilerplate exploit code, which is pretty awful code to tell the truth. The vmsplice bit looks brand new to me, but who knows, perhaps somebody out there really did know about the hole for the last year and a half. If so, they kept it to themselves and damage was not widespread.
      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    119. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian...oh yea thats rock solid secure...never would debian have a release of anything with an exploit...oh wait the current stable kernel release has a vmsplice exploit...duh!

    120. Re:Beauty of OSS by cloakable · · Score: 1

      The patch came down from the updates repository today. This is on Debian, and a Gentoo user I know had the same thing on his system. Hell, I didn't even know about the exploit until he said about it, and the updates were there :P

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    121. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The openssl insertion is proof you need to go back to noob. API's should be corrected of support for vulnerable implementations.
      These apis should also be documented to the fullest extent possible. Neither is applicable to openssl. Try gnutls for a replacement and enjoy.

    122. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell it like it is my lil pumpkin. Now come back in here and pleasure old Gran. Granny

    123. Re:Beauty of OSS by slummy · · Score: 1

      Try this:


      gcc -c -static -Wno-format code.c -o localroot && chmod +x localroot

      Should compile fine.

    124. Re:Beauty of OSS by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      To be make the shatting of bricks more painless, change them to capsules. Put less limestone or sand in the mortar? Less grinding action on exitry.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    125. Re:Beauty of OSS by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      "This is probably true when it comes to malware targeting grandma"

      Well, as long as the MALEware is not targeting grandmas. They're probably far beyond corruption. But, wait... WHAT mal(?)ware? Worms, virii, cookies, bots, web bugs? Doc's gonna be BUSY!

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    126. Re:Beauty of OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the BSD lot aside, the OSX nuts are going to pull your hair out for that one.
      OS X isn't significantly UNIX. That is to say, technically it may be more UNIX than Linux is (OS X has the certificate and everything!), but hardly anyone cares. 99% of OS X users never use any of that UNIX functionality directly; they run utterly non-UNIX applications like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop under Apple's proprietary, utterly non-UNIX GUI, period.
  2. The sound you hear... by downix · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the next sound you shall hear are millions of nerds rushing into their offices to compile a new kernel on a sunday afternoon... along with the millions of cell phones ringing as the bosses read this...

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:The sound you hear... by MPAB · · Score: 1

      kernel on a sunday afternoon... along with the millions of cell phones ringing as the bosses read this...
      Yeah right! As if the bosses would spend a Sunday afternoon (or any day at all) reading Slashdot...
    2. Re:The sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL another milions of versions of Linux.. How can this ever be manageable ?

  3. jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I strongly suspect this code doesn't do what it says on the tin.

    1. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I strongly suspect this code doesn't do what it says on the tin.
      Well, it's OSS, you could always fix it with a patch...
    2. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thats because you are compiling it with the wrong target.

      You need to include justin_timberlake.h and link it with the millionaires library.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by BJH · · Score: 5, Funny

      realdoll_and_a_tube_of_lube_on_my_inflatable_mattress.c ?

    4. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by celle · · Score: 1

      But I sure wish it did.

    5. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Its not very good, it did not compile at all under cygwin.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  4. Thank God by Zoxed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Phew, lucky I run MS Windows then !!

    1. Re:Thank God by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 1

      Haha, yes you're safe. Everyone already knows your servers are hacked O=)

      --
      If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
    2. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's like finding out there's a new 24-hour flu going around, and thanking God the AIDS will kill you first.

    3. Re:Thank God by monkeySauce · · Score: 5, Funny

      Phew, lucky I run MS Windows then !!

      I know what you mean. It's nice not having to freak out periodically like this since you live in a constant state of panic anyway.
    4. Re:Thank God by Sique · · Score: 1, Funny

      AIDS doesn't kill you. It's the inability, that comes with AIDS, to combat the virus of the 24-h-flu, that kills you.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll get used to it.

    6. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIDS doesn't kill you. It's the inability, that comes with AIDS, to combat the virus of the 24-h-flu, that kills you.
      Hmm. Is that like the blood's inability to coagulate around the knife sticking in your chest?
    7. Re:Thank God by crossmr · · Score: 1

      we really need to be able to mod stuff +1 fucking brilliant..

    8. Re:Thank God by Stratocastr · · Score: 1

      "I am lucky to be running windows " said the wise man to the fool.. "You must be one of those people ," said the fool " who sees the glass as half full.."

      --
      Slashdot - I went there to fix their grammar that they're so bad at.
    9. Re:Thank God by Kwiik · · Score: 1

      Really

      I run Red Hat!! i'm glad because all this linux crap doesn't affect us!

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    10. Re:Thank God by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, it's more like your inability to understand a simple distinction.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    11. Re:Thank God by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Don't you people ever chafe from all this intellectual masturbation?

      That buzzing sound in your ears is the alarms from millions of irony detectors, all over the world.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    12. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Windows, the equivalent of a "local root exploit" is how most people already run by default (i.e. "Administrator" and/or "Power User"), and it is how a surprising amount of poorly-written software expects to run or it will break. Prior to Vista, it would be considered a default "feature".

      Making a comparison to Windows is a moot point in those circumstances.

    13. Re:Thank God by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      "Administrator" and/or "Power User"

      Admin, yes and power user, no. Also it wasn't until XP that the NT default installations took a turn down this road, as 3.1-Win2k of NT always PUSHED IT people to never run as administrator.

      It was the 'we need to be compatible to all the crap Win9x software that doesn't understand security that created the 'default' admin mode of XP and the headache.

      MS should have done the Vista route in XP instead, even if it did break more crap from that time, although by waiting there are fewer apps that break today, as most software is geared towards XP and has at least a 'hint' of knowledge that security might exist.

      MS's view on XP by trusting users was a mistake to say the least, they should just pretend everyone is retarded and will click on anything like Apple did with OSX and lock up everything. (Apple could have even emulated System9 apps, but didn't want to have to unlock anything for them to run correctly knowing how dangerous this would be, so it left System9 apps in a VM Sandbox to avoid the idiot users circumventing the BSD/OSX security model.)

      Microsoft also left Windows too open for system level changes and modifications, which is one reason the 'tech' community use to love WIndows, as you could modify the hell out of it. Sure you didn't ahve source, but changing binaries was simple and easy enough for people to read that don't need C level source to understand. This has now become a reason MS is hated, which is ironic to say the least. And now that Vista stops this to a degree, people hate them all over again for having to get permission to install l88t applications filled with Spyware from friends.

      As for the whole exploit, this is a very good case in point of seeing the source code isn't always helpful, as all you need is someone smarter than the person that wrote the original source code to read it and find a weakness, and there are lot of people capable of doing this. So instead of doing buffer overflows and tons of tricks to hack open source, just find someone that is smarter than 99% of the people out there and give them some code and have them start writing exploit software that compromises it. And sadly this is much simplier than the way Windows is hacked, and why some 'closed' source does help security.

      Neither CSS or OSS is perfect or is there a black in white perspective here.

    14. Re:Thank God by ardin,mcallister · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend and I thank you for a good hardy laugh on a sunday night!

      --
      "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
    15. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're joking, but as a local root exploit, this is a category of security holes that Windows handily avoids by....not being secure.

      With XP every install is by default an admin account with no password whatsoever. You have to hunt down the control panel setting to even be able to password your (full privilege) account, just to prevent unauthorized physical access. If someone gets into that one account, its all over.

      On linux, someone has to get into your password-protected account, and still use an exploit to get full access to the box.

      This exploit on linux is like finding out the lock on your fridge is busted, so your beer is vulnerable. On Windows, neither the fridge nor the front door is locked in the first place.

    16. Re:Thank God by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      As for the whole exploit, this is a very good case in point of seeing the source code isn't always helpful, as all you need is someone smarter than the person that wrote the original source code to read it and find a weakness, and there are lot of people capable of doing this. So instead of doing buffer overflows and tons of tricks to hack open source, just find someone that is smarter than 99% of the people out there and give them some code and have them start writing exploit software that compromises it. And sadly this is much simplier than the way Windows is hacked, and why some 'closed' source does help security. O RLY?

      This only works if the project is done by idiots who make vulnerabilities by a dozen, so the only problem is to find them -- what seems to be the case with Windows. But how is your "smart" person going to find vulnerabilities in a code that does not have them? Even in a project as large as Linux things like that are extremely rare, so it does not matter how smart you are if you have to sift through tens of megabytes of source to find a single problem.
      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    17. Re:Thank God by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Right, and it's not the people who kill you during war, it's the bullets. Are you disputing that AIDS is a fatal condition?

    18. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read on Slashdot. Nicely done!

    19. Re:Thank God by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      That buzzing sound in your ears is the alarms from millions of irony detectors, all over the world.

      Except in NYC, where you need a license to have one. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  5. Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is not an universal problem. It only occurs for those kernels with a specific function compiled in that most installations won't need, and which halfway decent sysadmins won't have as part of the kernel anyhow when they don't need it.

    Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed.

    1. Re:Misleading by shadow42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just successfully used this exploit on a Fedora 7 box running 2.6.22.4. A bit out of date, yes, but a great deal of "home users" who are running Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu (especially Ubuntu), etc., either don't know how to compile their own kernel, or don't care enough to try. Not everyone who uses Linux is going to bother compiling a custom kernel in order to fix a problem like this, especially if they don't have the skills of a sysadmin.

    2. Re:Misleading by Unoti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship
      I suppose. But honestly, not everybody really needs a sysadmin that's going to diddle around for weeks and compile kernels just to set up a mail server and samba, for example. For most things, I'd rather have someone who just gets the work done rather than goofing off compiling kernels, installing ReiserFS and doing god knows what else other than things that really matter. Sure, there's a place for all that, but honestly most environments don't require it.
    3. Re:Misleading by fo0bar · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is not an universal problem. It only occurs for those kernels with a specific function compiled in that most installations won't need, and which halfway decent sysadmins won't have as part of the kernel anyhow when they don't need it.

      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed.

      Which reminds me, have you done your emerge -abuop6QvvvvVVvVVxz world yet today?
    4. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The average home user that's not willing to put in the effort to compile a new kernel is the home user that doesn't have anyone but either themselves, or people with physical access to the machine using it.

      If the only people that have accounts on the machine have physical access to it, this exploit is a lot more work than just opening the box...

    5. Re:Misleading by lakeland · · Score: 1

      I agree. It is the job of the vendor to know what about this sort of thing and turn off the features that I won't ever want so that the sysadmin doesn't have to concern himself with such details.

      Saying 'it is the user's problem' just isn't good enough. It is everyone's problem, and if everybody tries to fix it then maybe it will go away.

    6. Re:Misleading by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I just successfully used this exploit on a Fedora 7 box running 2.6.22.4. A bit out of date, yes... Fedora 7 is not out of date yet. It's got at least another two months of official support if I'm not mistaken, and it will get a whole lot more than that. I'm still running FC6 on one box.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:Misleading by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed. I'm a sysadmin who "blindly uses what the vendors [RHEL and CentOS] ship", not because I don't know how to recompile a kernel, but because sitting around and compiling a customized kernel for every server we have would be a complete waste of time.

    8. Re:Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The average home user that's not willing to put in the effort to compile a new kernel is the home user that doesn't have anyone but either themselves, or people with physical access to the machine using it.

      True, but then the severity is less because they're unlikely to be affected anyhow, right?

      It should mainly be a concern for those who do have other users or business operations on their boxen, and those should not have the affected kernel module in the first place unless they really need it. If they do, and they don't need it, this is a useful warning that perhaps they should start culling their systems down to what they actually need.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    9. Re:Misleading by Unoti · · Score: 1

      I would like to acknowledge, however, that these words ring a little more hollow than normal today.

    10. Re:Misleading by RonnyJ · · Score: 1
      Could you go into any detail into why most installations don't need this particular function? Even if you can, it's hardly misleading to call it a 'Linux Kernel 2.6 Local Root Exploit' if it is one, is it?

    11. Re:Misleading by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding me right? Like every sysadmin out there is supposed to know about every feature he doesn't use? Most of the time if you compile out something you'll end up breaking something you do want because you don't understand the internal kernel dependencies or what this really means in terms of functionality. Don't forget I now expect you on duty 24/7 to compile new kernels whenever there's a kernel patch available, particularly when you're sick and or vacation and whoever is filling in for you only knows apt-get/yum/whatever. Anyone that spent that much time on managing a Linux server would probably be fired because he'd be less efficient than a Windows server and an MSCE.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Misleading by MikeUW · · Score: 2

      If I end up with a locally installed root kit on my laptop, I'll only have myself to blame. For some reason, though, I lack the motivation to recompile the kernel to protect myself from myself.

    13. Re:Misleading by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      "I'd rather have someone who just gets the work done rather than goofing off compiling kernels, installing ReiserFS and doing god knows what else other than things that really matter."

      Those are the things that really matter, if your Admin takes a couple of weeks to do that, well, thats another story, but taking a few days to properly set up a server (especially since you can normally do it in parallel to the server you already have setup, basically only about 15 minutes downtime), means you probably wont have to touch the setup again for a year or more... instead of just an hour, and then having to fix things every week...

      I dunno about you, but im pretty sure the time it takes for a proper setup, is better than possibly years of lost data, and all around confusion over whats there? whats missing? no I didnt get your e-mail, are you sure you sent it? why is my computer acting so strange?...

    14. Re:Misleading by neumayr · · Score: 1

      I imagine it'd be pretty easy to talk one them linnics noobs looking for help on IRC to give you ssh access, so you can "help them".

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    15. Re:Misleading by caseih · · Score: 1

      No, it is a universal problem. If you want any vendor support at all, you have to be running stock packages, especially for the kernels. So this is a huge deal. It will affect most linux installations out there. People don't recompile their own kernels on a regular basis. Crap like this happens from time to time and it does hurt Linux' reputation. Frankly, going around speaking like this doesn't promote Linux at all with PHBs and the people who actually pay the bills and buy the technology.

      No, the headline is not misleading. Most installations of linux that use the 2.6 kernel *are* vulnerable.

    16. Re:Misleading by kitgerrits · · Score: 5, Insightful


      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around.
      I got rather tired of picking and choosing what I need, just to get faster boot times.

      That, and any time you need (professional) support for a third-party application, the first thing they ask you is wether you are running a stock kernel.
      I -want- to be able to tell MySQL and RedHat to fight it out amongst themselves if my database does not live up to expectations.
      I have better things to do with my time than to set-up and analyse endless system profiles, straces and stack dumps.

      Grow up, get a real job and see what the real world is like.
      You'll find that you no longer have the time to check SANS and packetstorm every day, just to see if your system is secure, spend days just to get that library to compile and then see the entire system go out the window, because it cannot be maintained (because you have be re-assigned to another project).

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    17. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to say, *which option* should we disable in the kernel .config ?

    18. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In my very limited testing it appears that the stock kernel with CentOS 4.6 and CentOS 5.0 are not vulnerable. Debian 4.0 'etch' and Ubuntu 7.10 'Gutsy Gibbon' both are vulnerable with the stock kernel.

      -evilghost

    19. Re:Misleading by PNutts · · Score: 0

      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed. Well, so much for me trying Ubuntu. Looks like My Mom(tm) stays on Windows, too.

    20. Re:Misleading by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PHBs aren't stupid (err.. did I just write that??). They understand that crap happens. They're not on your back because it happened, they want to know what you're going to *do* about it.

      So the right answer is not 'It's not really a problem, honest!' The right answer is 'Yes, I fixed the problem on all our servers first thing this morning, with no downtime.'

    21. Re:Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that after spending man-months on getting the equipment installed in the first place, spending an extra man-day on proper configuration would be a good investment.

      I notice that there are people who think otherwise, and I also notice (with some glee, I may add) that it's usually them who gets called at 5 AM on a Sunday morning because their server has been hacked or is at high risk from a zero day exploit.

    22. Re:Misleading by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      I'd rather get called @ 5 AM to fix a problem, implying I still have a job, then getting canned for low productivity for spending too much time configuring kernels for servers when the stock kernel on most enterprise-level distributions work just fine 99.9% of the time. It's hard to justify to PHBs why it took the equivalent amount of time setting up 1 server as it would 3.

    23. Re:Misleading by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed.

      I hope that was a joke. If you hired a sysadmin who started compiling their own kernels on your enterprise Red Hat systems, you'd lose support.

      Rich.

    24. Re:Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could you go into any detail into why most installations don't need this particular function?

      Would it be of interest to do so here on slashdot, considering that the relevant information is only a few clicks away? The short of it is: If you use software that doesn't require 2.6.17 or newer, it won't need vmsplice (because vmsplice didn't exist before then), and if you do run software that hard requires 2.6.17 or newer, chances are it won't use vmsplice anyhow.

      Even if you can, it's hardly misleading to call it a 'Linux Kernel 2.6 Local Root Exploit' if it is one, is it?

      No, that's correct enough. It would probably be better to say "Linux Kernel 2.6 Function Local Root Exploit", but that's splitting hairs.
      However, the "seems to work everywhere I try it, as long as it's a Linux kernel version 2.6.17 to 2.6.24.1." is, I believe, misleading. One need to keep in mind that his "everywhere I tried" is likely not representative for those with an urgent need to patch against this. That's what I think is slightly misleading. It's like if an error in the M$ kernel only affecting those with IIS installed would necessitate a need to immediately patch ALL M$ servers.
    25. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another GURU advice from Professor Dipshit. Thank you god for slashdot wisdom!

    26. Re:Misleading by BasharTeg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quick, cue the Linux apologists! Damage control! Spin it! Only noobs and bad administrators would be affected!

    27. Re:Misleading by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not an universal problem. It only occurs for those kernels with a specific function compiled in that most installations won't need, and which halfway decent sysadmins won't have as part of the kernel anyhow when they don't need it.

      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed.

      Suppose there is a bug in Windows (stretch your imagination to include that possibility) that is part of one of the unpopular services on by default. No one on /. would excuse it because the user (or their sysadmin) should have disabled that service.

      Also, options should never, as a principle, cause security holes.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    28. Re:Misleading by agurkan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Grow up, get a real job and see what the real world is like."

      sounds like a bitter adult to me. some people are really happy staying as curious kids, compiling their kernel and do other stuff that is interesting to them, rather getting a "real job".

      --
      ato
    29. Re:Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you won't. If you have a problem, you reboot a lab server to a standard kernel, verify that the problem is there, and report it. RH has no problems with that, as long as you can replicate the problem on a vanilla system.

    30. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, extremely funny. Lose vendor support for a small performance gain or a small attack surface reduction.

    31. Re:Misleading by Teppic_52 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around.
      I thought it still was...
    32. Re:Misleading by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Yet another good example of why you shouldn't hire the sysadmins who blindly use what the vendors ship, but security and performance minded sysadmins who reduce installations to what's actually needed.

      I used to do that 10+ years ago. Then I realized there's more interesting and useful things to do than waste my time learning what each and every kernel module was, what it did, if I really needed it, etc.

      I also realized that I didn't want to screw around re-compiling kernels every time some new patch came out that fixed this-or-that.

      With this specific case, it's quite rare these days to have untrusted users with the shell access required to execute this code. Nowadays Linux servers are running services that interact with the users rather than shell accounts, so almost nobody you don't already trust can execute arbitrary code.

      It'd also be interesting to know if Security Enhanced Linux can prevent this exploit.

      --
      AccountKiller
    33. Re:Misleading by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      I got rather tired of picking and choosing what I need, just to get faster boot times.

      maybe the original poster was saying that there are sometimes other reasons to compile your own kernel.

    34. Re:Misleading by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Application vulnerabilities (in web browsers, chat clients, etc) can turn a local root exploit into a remote root exploit. This is a mess for everybody.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    35. Re:Misleading by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reply was to a post about how companies should hire decent sysadmins who compile their own kernels for efficiency and security. Read before you reply.

    36. Re:Misleading by iabervon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using vmsplice() in ordinary applications should improve system performance under load when appropriate (when you send full pages of generated data to a network connection, the kernel won't have to copy the pages, it can DMA straight to the NIC, saving work and cache space). So it's quite possible that distros would ship binaries that use vmsplice() if their default kernels support it, and it would be a performance hit to disable it. I don't know if any significant programs actually use vmsplice() yet, but it wouldn't be surprising.

    37. Re:Misleading by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Reply was to a post about how companies should hire decent sysadmins who compile their own kernels for efficiency and security. Read before you reply.
      Check again, the reply was to this post http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=448542&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=22372584
    38. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most pointless argument I've ever seen. Here's exactly what you said:

      This exploit is harmless because it relies on a function that despite being active and available by default almost everywhere is something that's not needed in most installations, thus, just by not being needed, any half-decent sysadmin will automatically config it out of the newly compiled core they all do as the very first thing when they set a new system up.

      Right. Harmless, just like that, 'coz the vector of approach is not needed, hence it's harmless!

    39. Re:Misleading by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll find that you no longer have the time to check SANS and packetstorm every day

      Dunno about you, but it's my job to (among other things) keep abreast of emerging security issues, then decide on their severity and priority. A quickie scan of SANS ISC is just as much a morning habit to me as log reviews and sucking down the morning caffeinated liquid.

      Shit, man... a sysadmin who doesn't check at least some source of leading-edge security news daily is IMHO either incompetent or lazy, and tend to be the ones who look really stupid once they get blindsided by a compromise.

      I'd much rather be chided for pushing something off by a few minutes, than to have to explain to my boss and his peers why I didn't know about XYZ exploit, and more importantly, why I didn't do anything to prevent it from chowing down on the production servers...

      (and no, I don't run Gentoo, and I avoid recompiling any kernel unless absolutely necessary).

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    40. Re:Misleading by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I suppose. But honestly, not everybody really needs a sysadmin that's going to diddle around for weeks and compile kernels

      They only have to diddle around for weeks once before they know what they are doing and most of them did that at home before they even got the job.

      I see your point. I have a guy in the company that "helps out" by installing the distro of the week (he never stays with one long enough to learn how to update packages) and putting ReiserFS beta versions on production systems. He's missed the point that you play on a spare machine that nobody else uses or cares about and only unleash the new fad when you know what you are doing with it and know that it is more than just a new fad.

    41. Re:Misleading by Ambush+Commander · · Score: 1

      Hear hear! For instance, the first thing I thought when I saw this exploit was, "Crap, what about my webhost!" (I don't really care much about my home Linux install, where the exploit does work, because it's strictly local). Happily enough, the exploit ended with "vmsplice: Function not implemented" and all was good.

      Of course, whether or not using a shared host is a good security practice is another issue altogether. ;-)

    42. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The short of it is: If you use software that doesn't require 2.6.17 or newer, it won't need vmsplice (because vmsplice didn't exist before then), and if you do run software that hard requires 2.6.17 or newer, chances are it won't use vmsplice anyhow.
      Absolutely terrible advice.
    43. Re:Misleading by caluml · · Score: 1

      If you use software that doesn't require 2.6.17 or newer, it won't need vmsplice (because vmsplice didn't exist before then), and if you do run software that hard requires 2.6.17 or newer, chances are it won't use vmsplice anyhow. I'm safe! My soon-to-be-1000-day-uptime box can be left untouched!

      $ uprecords
      # Uptime | System Boot up
      -> 1 961 days, 13:05:42 | Linux 2.6.11-hardened-r Fri Jun 24 11:18:25 2005



      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
    44. Re:Misleading by legirons · · Score: 1

      "I'd rather have someone who just gets the work done rather than goofing off compiling kernels, installing ReiserFS and doing god knows what else other than things that really matter. Sure, there's a place for all that, but honestly most environments don't require it."

      Good luck when your deskop goes blank, explaining to your boss how you don't really care about linux-ideas like uptime ;)

    45. Re:Misleading by caluml · · Score: 4, Informative

      Care to say, *which option* should we disable in the kernel .config ? Good question. I, from what I can see, don't think it has an option that you can disable. I just edited /usr/src/linux/fs/splice.c, and changed the line (round about line 1200-ish - differs slightly) from

      if (unlikely(!base))
      to

      if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, base, len))
      as mentioned in http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=712a30e63c8066ed84385b12edbfb804f49cbc44
      Then make and install the new kernel, reboot, and try the exploit. It should fail.
    46. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked on a BSD kernel, and a very large number of bug reports are from idiotic system administrators that compile their own kernels without a particular option before knowing the full ramifications of their actions. Security and performance are usually cited as reasons for why they chose to compile their own kernel. However, most of these administrators don't know the first thing about secure coding practices, don't know how the code and dependencies are structured, and can never provide benchmarks that show that removing a particular option provides an actual increase in performance. In many cases, if they actually looked at the code, they'd realize that the removal of the "unused option" makes absolutely no difference in terms of performance.

      This "compile your own kernel" stupidity has led to the point that most vendors won't even support anything besides the default kernel.

    47. Re:Misleading by jdowland · · Score: 1

      as far as I can tell you are wrong, this is not an optional feature. The code i s in fs/splice.c and there's seemingly no splice-related config option in fs/Kconfig. Indeed, the Makefile lists splice.o as being part of the core object set. I'm not an expert on the kernel so I could well be wrong, but I've looked - if it is optional, what's the config option's name that disables it?

    48. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I imagine it'd be pretty easy to talk one them linnics noobs looking for help on IRC to give you ssh access, so you can "help them".

      Anyone that gullible would probably let you help them with their banking problems as well.

      Again, really... stupid people will get screwed. But it isn't a kernel issue at that point, it's just PEBCAK.

    49. Re:Misleading by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      I imagine it'd be pretty easy to talk one them linnics noobs looking for help on IRC to give you ssh access, so you can "help them".

      If you can talk them into giving you ssh access it is trivial to talk them into giving you root access at the same time, exploit isn't needed.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    50. Re:Misleading by kitgerrits · · Score: 1

      I admit I may have been a bit caustic in my post.

      I remember those days, balancing OpenBSD, FreeBSD and RHEL as respectively firewall, webserver and DC/fileserver. Portaudit and a personalised LogWatch filterset were my best friends.
      When I left that company, they junked the entire system and switched to windows (ugh) because they couldn't find anyone to maintain it.
      (even with clear instructions, maintaining patches and users across separate systems is a PITA, more automation would have meant more security holes than I was comfortable with)

      Any security breach that is big enough will usually make it to the front page of /.
      The problem is usually waiting for the patch to be released for my servers (days) and getting authorization to patch the servers (weeks, if not months).

      In the meantime, I spend my time educating users (and suppliers) about SSH/scp/https and the benefits of security.
      There's no point in patching relatively-safe holes, if all the doors and windows are open.
      (we're talking systems with rsh, rcp, rlogin and the works)
      I have considered blowing the whistle to the security officer, but that would only result in me getting fired and the system moving on exactly the same, because no-one else knows -how- to plug the holes.

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    51. Re:Misleading by Sillygates · · Score: 1

      2.6.22.4 is not an "up-to-date" official kernel for fc7 though. The fedora team has already released several 2.6.23 kernels for fedora 7.

      --
      I fear the Y2038 bug
    52. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, it's not *that* difficult. I have GNU/Linux (Debian-lenny) running on my laptop; before Debian, I had NetBSD, before that, Linux from Scratch, before that, Slackware... With any kernel-compile, it's just a matter of going through all the options and comparing it to what hardware one has. (Think: lspci, lsusb, etc.) It took me about eighty minutes to configure the kernel for my current box, and an additional thirty seconds every time I upgrade and run 'make oldconfig'.

    53. Re:Misleading by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any of that (modded up at least), how about you?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    54. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a real job, and I still use make menuconfig on my gentoo servers.
      Once you set it up once, the changes from kernel to kernel tend to be minimal. And unlike folks blindly installing kernels, I have less moving parts to keep track of.

      Really, is not that hard.

      Oh, and no, I didn't enable vmsplice.

    55. Re:Misleading by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I think that after spending man-months on getting the equipment installed in the first place,

      What kind of hardware are you dealing with, exactly? We would just buy a couple boxes from Dell and screw them on the rack that was already setup, plugged into the switch that was already set up. Maybe 12 man-hours, and that includes the time it takes to find where we left the rack screws.

      Even if you have to install the rack and switching, I don't see it taking more than a week. Multiple man-months? Seriously?

    56. Re:Misleading by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 0, Troll

      Of course, if you're hand-compiling everything, you won't have time to apply a patch every time an exploit is discovered in something you do need. You'll be less secure unless you have implausibly large amounts of time to track and maintain everything.

      It's not blindly using vendor binaries, there's nothing blind about it. It's a very explicit cost/benefit analysis. Those vendor binaries save time upfront with the install, they save time with patches and upgrades, they vastly increase the number of servers an admin can maintain, and they make support with whatever vendors you're dealing with much easier.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    57. Re:Misleading by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 1

      Of course, being "home users", a local privilege escalation just means the one person using the box will have a brand new way to `sudo' until the new kernel patches roll around. This thing is not a danger unless a) you've already been hit with a remote sploit giving someone access to the box, or b) this is a shared system, which most home systems likely aren't. So unless you're hacked by other means, most home users won't have a problem with this. Businesses on the other hand...

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
    58. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or they just don't worry about local exploits, because like all "home" users of Windows, they are the _only_ person on the machine. "local exploit" + "one schizo user" == "problem" else "no problem".

    59. Re:Misleading by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I suppose. But honestly, not everybody really needs a sysadmin that's going to diddle around for weeks and compile kernels just to set up a mail server and samba, for example. For most things, I'd rather have someone who just gets the work done rather than goofing off compiling kernels, installing ReiserFS and doing god knows what else other than things that really matter.

      Agreed, for most instances - you can get a whole lot more performance in an hour's work out of dumping modules and packages you don't need, than out of tweaking the unholy crap out of a kernel for that last 0.001% performance boost. If you're smart you'll already have a minimum build kickstarted, from which you can add only what you need.

      Unless I'm trying to squeeze every last CPU cycle out of a VMWare install for one more VM guest OS, or I get tasked to help assemble a custom build environment VM instance or server, I figure why bother?

      As a bonus, I don't have to worry so much about patches breaking things.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    60. Re:Misleading by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Managing one system is a lot different than managing 100 or more systems.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    61. Re:Misleading by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you get a lot of users on your personal box who might use this exploit.

    62. Re:Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The part that comes before "just buy". Which includes meetings to discuss needs, meetings to discuss possible solutions to needs, meetings to figure out which budgets will pay, meetings with vendors, meetings with developers, creating specs, negotiating specs, you name it.
      Only if you run your own company do you get to "just buy". And sometimes not even then.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    63. Re:Misleading by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      Just tried it on Gentoo. It works too.

    64. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps its not the initial kernel config but rather the upgrade ease of a 'yum update kernel' across the board. Spending that extra man-day for each different update is a lot of man days.... how many kernel updates are there in a year? And how many days in a year?

      I know in an environment where I and only two others admin over 300 linux servers the 'yum update kernel' has a strong appeal.

    65. Re:Misleading by stor · · Score: 1

      > I think that after spending man-months on getting the equipment installed in the first place, spending an extra man-day on proper configuration would be a good investment.

      Only if you're willing to spend an extra day *documenting* your customisations (including rationale behind them).

      Thanks,
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    66. Re:Misleading by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around.
      I got rather tired of picking and choosing what I need, just to get faster boot times. Two points:

      1. Don't knock 'make menuconfig' -- it's simple, fast and efficient.
      2. You're not going to get (noticeably) faster boot times by compiling a custom kernel. It only takes a couple of seconds for a generic distro kernel to load, after all. (The real time delay in the linux boot process is from the services that get started at boot time, which are started in series by inefficient shell scripts.)

      The real reason why most of us compile our own kernels is to enable custom features (swsusp2, for example).
    67. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Oh the irony.

    68. Re:Misleading by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Grow up, get a real job and see what the real world is like.
      You'll find that you no longer have the time to check SANS and packetstorm every day

      You make your living as a sysadmin, with security and stability of your machines as a responsibility.
      You don't have the time to glance daily at a title, and choose to read a relevant , short blurb on a significant security issue, but you have time to goof off on Slashdot!?!?!

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    69. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah. I see a lot of those.

    70. Re:Misleading by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around.

      *blink*blink*

      What was that now? Something BETTER than 'make menuconfig'?

      Clearly you've been following developments closer than I.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    71. Re:Misleading by Builder · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't work in a large enterprise then? Or actually listen to the kernel developers ?

      As of the 2.6 branch, the developers believe that it's all right to do mad things in the kernel, and that it's up to the vendors to stablise this. Not as in operational stability, but as in API / ABI stability.

      In an enterprise, you absolutely CANNOT live with a situation where you can either live with a security hole and have everything behave correctly, or accept behaviour changes if you want to patch a security hole. Even in the 2.4 series, we had the thread conversion nightmare, but the 2.6 tree is ever-changing.

      This is further compounded by the fact that if you change the kernel and you're on something supported by a vendor, you can kiss your support goodbye.

      The end result of all of this is that most Linux computers in large organisations absolutely WILL be running a vanilla vendor shipped kernel. And there sysadmins don't have a leg to stand on when arguing against this, because the kernel developers said that this is what should be done !

    72. Re:Misleading by sowth · · Score: 1

      I am not sure you quite understand how this exploit can be used. Yeah, another user on your machine could use it to get root and mess with your files, but also someone who gains access to one of your programs or a daemon through the internet could also get root.

      Say your email program (or web browser or web server or rpc daemon, etc...) has a code execution exploit. Someone who wants to break into your machine could send you an email (or get you to visit a web page, or send a packet to the server's port), and the code they sent will be executed. All they have to do to get complete control over your machine is include some code for the exploit in the article, and they will be able to do anything with your computer--delete/corrupt files, add/modify programs, write zeros to your hard drive, instruct the robot attached to your computer to shove a plunger handle up your anus, whatever.

      So if you have any programs which are connected to the internet, you should worry at least a little...

    73. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose there is a bug in Windows (stretch your imagination to include that possibility) that is part of one of the unpopular services on by default. No one on /. would excuse it because the user (or their sysadmin) should have disabled that service.

      If a Windows admin is able to disable a service, he's already over the "Linux doesn't have a blue background as default, this is too complicated"-threshold. Why is he then running Windows in the first place?

    74. Re:Misleading by kitgerrits · · Score: 1

      I dunno.
      When I was still compiling kernels, 'make menuconfig' was still -very new-, and you still had to 'post-check' the configs by hand.
      (I remember 'make config', but it was an unreasonable PITA)
      (how do you mean, 3c90x won't function without MII bus?)

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    75. Re:Misleading by kitgerrits · · Score: 1


      Sunday February 10, @10:14PM

      I make a quick glance at /. in the morning before I go to work and, ehm, troll, through the threads on evenings and weekends.
      Now I really have to get back to work ;)

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    76. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... and here come source based distros... (gentoo, sourcemage...)... because what's more efficient that removing *code* you do not need from the software you use...

    77. Re:Misleading by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      HEY HEY HEY

      if i read the patch correctly, 3 lines are ADDED, not REPLACED.

      sorry about shouting. but ADDING the lines to fs/splice.c also disables the exploit while still maintaining the old break condition.

    78. Re:Misleading by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      apologies, i can see now that the second statement is simply a refinement of the first.

    79. Re:Misleading by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have someone who just gets the work done rather than goofing off compiling kernels, installing ReiserFS.

      But ReiserFS is a KILLER app! :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    80. Re:Misleading by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      Advanced, yes.
      I believe GP actually meant "easiest". Odd how so many people make that mistake.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    81. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, your mom uses windows. /fratboy

    82. Re:Misleading by neurovish · · Score: 1

      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around. I thought it still was... wait...there's something more advanced than make config?
    83. Re:Misleading by cloakable · · Score: 1

      makes xconfig ;)

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    84. Re:Misleading by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1


      You know, I haven't built my own kernel since 'make menuconfig' was the most advanced method around.
      I got rather tired of picking and choosing what I need, just to get faster boot times.


      I agree, building a new kernel is almost never needed these days, but I will not say it is never needed.

      Grow up, get a real job and see what the real world is like.

      I can't agree with you here. The working world if pretty unsympathetic and sometimes there are demands that require you to send a day on an arcane library. Sometimes, you need to dig out all the tools to find out WTF happened or is happening.

    85. Re:Misleading by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Which was a reply to this:

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=448542&cid=22372518

      Which is the comment about how companies shouldn't hire sysadmins who don't compile their own kernels, which is what the GP was replying to and what my parent completely missed the boat on.

  6. Before the inevitable occurs: by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "But see, Linux sucks! It has holes just like Windows does!"

    The difference is that we know about this hole, and can now fix it - I'm just going to bed, and it will no doubt be fixed by the time I wake up. How many Windows security issues are known that haven't been fixed?

    "Oh man, this is why Linux is great! We can find holes, and fix them, like, immediately!"

    Yes, that's a strength of Linux. What I want to know is, what steps will be taken to ensure that bugs of this type - whatever they might be - don't crop up again? One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements - I'm honestly not sure if I believe the Linux kernel is held to the strong standards that a commercial kernel theoretically could be.

    The existence of this bug is a failure on Linux's part. There's no way to get around that. Many mistakes were made, from the original code or design decision that caused this bug all the way up to it not being found until now. The bug will be fixed rapidly - but the process that let this bug be released needs to be looked at, casually at the very least, to figure out if there's a way to stop this class of error from ever happening again. (Whatever class of error it ends up being - I don't pretend to know.)

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by RonnyJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is that we know about this hole, and can now fix it
      We know about it now, but how long have some other people known about it? There's this quote from the code:

      This is quite old code and I had to rewrite it to even compile.

    2. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what steps will be taken to ensure that bugs of this type - whatever they might be - don't crop up again? All code in the kernel goes through a fairly exhaustive review process to the point where the major developers, like Linus, don't write code much, just review what's already been put in. If you look at the number of linux kernel exploits over the past year, you'll see that there's not a whole bunch (this is the only one I've heard of). Whether it's as good as a commercial, proprietary product, I don't know. But I do know that it's good enough to get the job done well.
    3. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, this is an example of one of the millions of Linux kernel holes there are out there. Every now and then, a blackhat gets a job and wants to impress his employer so he pulls out some of his old code and polishes it up. You can tell when it happens because they are so childish that they make the exploit trivial to demonstrate and distribute it far and wide. And you just know that every blackhat who had a variant of this exploit in their personal collection are like "well thanks asshole, now I've got one less Linux kernel exploit.. bastard."

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by celle · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a strength of Linux. What I want to know is, what steps will be taken to ensure that bugs of this type - whatever they might be - don't crop up again? One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements - I'm honestly not sure if I believe the Linux kernel is held to the strong standards that a commercial kernel theoretically could be.

      The key word is "theoretically". Ask microsoft about strong standards and have them call you back when they stop laughing. Repeat with other vendors and don't hold you breath for the callback. One of the reasons linux is popular with people who need stability and quick fixes is because commercial vendors often suck at it. Like any other industry "strong standards" in software is just theory as long as money can be made going the other way. The other way being current dogma. Please shovel the bullshit somewhere else. This is a minor bug versus the blind leading the blind of commercial support.

    5. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements - I'm honestly not sure if I believe the Linux kernel is held to the strong standards that a commercial kernel theoretically could be

      Are you on crack? I remember the 90s quite well, and there were TONS of local exploits by every commercial UNIX vendor. Sun, SGI, HP, you name it! The "commercial kernels" are no exception when it comes to local root exploits.

      The existence of this bug is a failure on Linux's part. There's no way to get around that.

      I guess, but so what? If you're protecting some Big Secret, relying on the single best perfect lock is going to screw you every time. If this actually affects anyone, I'd put the blame more squarely on whoever implemented the system where some critical piece of information is dependent on one component of the security system failing. Defense in depth, as they say.

      What's the best way to protect yourself from bugs like this? I'd say for starters don't give away shell accounts or accounts that allow people to execute arbitrary code to someone untrusted. Local exploits are unlikely to go away completely as there's just too much code to exploit. If you truly can't help but give away shell accounts for whatever reason (and not use something like VMWare to just give everyone their own box), then work on mitigating the damage to local root access.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements

      As opposed to Linux, which is backed up by several large paid organizations, notably including IBM.

    7. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements
      Ah yes, as Vista nears it's 2nd year of Beta.
      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    8. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to bed, and it will no doubt be fixed by the time I wake up.

      Since most of my boxen don't have "users" that can shell in other than me (the DNS server, firewall, webserver) I will just wait for the next kernel upgrade (a week maybe) and not worry. Same with desktops.

      The existence of this bug is a failure on Linux's part.

      Don't even get me started on Windows bugs (like image rendering...) that persisted for years unfixed. At least this wasn't known. If you want to rag about Linux, don't forget that Linus has never left a security bug in the kernel because it was 'obscure' or out of laziness. While MS is a better now, they wrote the book on ignoring securing in the 90s.

      Guess what: software will always have bugs. Because Linux has a sane permissions system (user space vs. kernel space), it won't affect the vast majority of users or expose them to risks, or at worst, for a day or two.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      "But see, Linux sucks! It has holes just like Windows does!"

      The difference is that we know about this hole, and can now fix it - I'm just going to bed, and it will no doubt be fixed by the time I wake up. How many Windows security issues are known that haven't been fixed?

      "Oh man, this is why Linux is great! We can find holes, and fix them, like, immediately!"

      Yes, that's a strength of Linux. What I want to know is, what steps will be taken to ensure that bugs of this type - whatever they might be - don't crop up again? One advantage that a large paid organization can have is strict testing requirements - I'm honestly not sure if I believe the Linux kernel is held to the strong standards that a commercial kernel theoretically could be.

      The existence of this bug is a failure on Linux's part. There's no way to get around that. Many mistakes were made, from the original code or design decision that caused this bug all the way up to it not being found until now. The bug will be fixed rapidly - but the process that let this bug be released needs to be looked at, casually at the very least, to figure out if there's a way to stop this class of error from ever happening again. (Whatever class of error it ends up being - I don't pretend to know.) What are you? a politician?
      It takes a lot of gall to decree that there is a problem in the process, and the process must be fixed so "this class of error" never happens again, when you don't even know what the process is, what class of error it is, and whether or not it is even theoretically feasible to prevent it from ever happening again.

      People scored your post insightful??? It should be scored TROLL.
      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    10. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it didn't work.

      I mean, okay, there's a review process - that's awesome, it's above and beyond what many products to.

      But it didn't work. There's an exploit. How did the exploit get through? Was there something which could have been checked, which wasn't? Is there a set of tests that isn't being run? I don't know, but I'd say these things need to be figured out.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    11. Re:Before the inevitable occurs: by Durzel · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      It's all very well stating that Linux is better because of some twee fantasy of full and immediate disclosure but for all we know this exploit may have been out there in blackhat circles for weeks, or months.

      People should be concerned about things like this - obviously no OS is perfect but it sets a dangerous precedence when people try and sweep vulnerabilities like this under the carpet purely to try and save face.

  7. This will be fixed in a day by Doug52392 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Or even a few hours. The few significant holes in OSS operating systems and programs are always patched so quickly. However, Microsoft takes months, even years to patch the thousands of holes in Windows...

    *checks kernel version* 2.6.23.8-34... wow I'm out of date :) Is my kernel version effected?

    1. Re:This will be fixed in a day by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Test it and let us know. They provided the code.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    2. Re:This will be fixed in a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patch is here.

    3. Re:This will be fixed in a day by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

      It works. :( The first time I ran it I got a segmentation fault. The 2nd time I ran it, X crashed. When I ran it for a 3rd time in a bash session, I was sucessfully logged in as root just by running the program. I'm running Fedora 7, with the kernel version I said above.

    4. Re:This will be fixed in a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it where a Windows problem, it would be patched via Windows Update in a few weeks.

      Now its a Linux kernel issue affecting god knows how many installations without proper update service, meaning that there will be boxes with this exploit years to come.

    5. Re:This will be fixed in a day by skeftomai · · Score: 1

      Running this under Ubuntu Feisty Server, I just get a Segmentation fault. Have not tried running under an X session.

    6. Re:This will be fixed in a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The few significant holes in OSS operating systems and programs are always patched so quickly.

      Translation:

      OSS has no sort of QA process whatsoever. If a patch hoses your system, that's just too bad.
    7. Re:This will be fixed in a day by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      About 90% of copies of Windows out there are pirated, and so won't be auto-updated. Of the 10% of copies out there that are genuine, about 90% belong to clueless users who won't bother to use the automatic update service. That leaves probably about 1% of the total number of Windows boxes out there likely to get updated.

      Also, the ADSL router must be programmed to forward ports. Even if a daemon is running on a Linux box, there's no guarantee that it can be seen from the outside world.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  8. Buggy Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I compiled the code without problem. But when I rebooted, the splash screen said 'Vista Home Premium'.

    1. Re:Buggy Code by Kreigaffe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sorry, but your OS has caught teh A1DZ

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:Buggy Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that bad. He's got a case of the drip, tho. Vista Ultimate is teh AIDZ. ;)

  9. Works for me too by etymxris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just tested on Suse x86_64 10.3, ran as local user and it dropped me into root.

    Linux opteron 2.6.22.16-0.2-default #1 SMP 2008/02/01 19:36:55 UTC x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

    1. Re:Works for me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please create an account for me? All I need is an access to wget and gcc. :-p

  10. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by elzurawka · · Score: 1

    I can log into the Server that all the students use at my school. People write code there, they have projects, and personal files saved. I now potentially have access to everything. Local does not mean safe if you have many regular users logging in all the time.

    --
    -EL
  11. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nope, all you need is remote access to a local user account via ssh or something. Many users use weak passwords. Now you won't have to guess the root password.

    Yes, I just verified the exploit on Linux 2.6.17.13 (Slackware 11.0) and Linux 2.6.21.5 (Slackware 12.0) and it works as advertised.

  12. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by etymxris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well if you have a shared hosting account that allows ssh logins, anyone can now become root and start messing around.

  13. ssh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, I opened an ssh window instead.

    1. Re:ssh by Unoti · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh sure, you're recompiling the kernel of your production environments from home. Hopefully, everything will go really well! Better hope it boots properly the first time! Or perhaps this is a normal procedure for you, and you can change kernels remotely easily when the system won't boot.

    2. Re:ssh by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you are running machines that are designed to be enterprise class, it isn't a problem. Remote console is standard on enterprise class hardware.

    3. Re:ssh by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, you're recompiling the kernel of your production environments from home.
      I have had to upgrade kernels on production systems located on a different continent. In such a case it doesn't really matter if I do it from home or from the office.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    4. Re:ssh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is. And yes, I can. It's not like installing Slackware on your Mom's old 386. Professionals have been using "Lights Out" technology for years now.

    5. Re:ssh by hjf · · Score: 1

      perhaps it isn't normal procedure for you, but it is for me. you obviously don't know how to configure LILO to boot the test kernel in the next boot only, or to configure the kernel for reboot on panic. but I have done it on servers on satellite links, hundreds of kilometers away, and it has worked for me, thanks.

      Or just configure the kernel and reboot tomorrow when you get there.

      Or use a decent server with lights-out management

    6. Re:ssh by vidarh · · Score: 1
      In my last job I never even once saw the servers I was responsible for. I was working from London with occasional visits to California and the 60+ servers we used were located in Houston and Dallas. "Smart hands" coupled with remote consoles and a bit of care means not needing site visits.

      In my current job all new hardware is being deployed with IPMI, meaning I can do remote reboots, remote consoles etc. via ethernet remotely from any machine in our environment we choose to give access to with no extra cabling.

    7. Re:ssh by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Feh, remote reboots are nothing on enterprise class hardware -- they have management consoles or RILO cards for that.

      Remote installs are a bit more of a challenge, just because a virtual DVD drive is a bit slower than a local drive. (Virtual as in - the DVD is in my laptop, the system I'm booting off of it is on the other end of an internet connection.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:ssh by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      Better hope it boots properly the first time! Or perhaps this is a normal procedure for you, and you can change kernels remotely easily when the system won't boot.
      Not a big deal since most people should have terminal servers and remote power control units setup to gain remote console access and reboot out of band if necessary. Even better, if they're VMs under VMware or something similar then you still have remote console and reboot capabilities. I used to perform all kinds of critical maintenance from my laptop in the bathroom on the weekend while taking a crap.
    9. Re:ssh by Unoti · · Score: 1

      That's cool and great. You rock, seriously! I don't agree with your assertion that "most people" would have terminal servers and remote power control units, but rock on.

    10. Re:ssh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because you don't work with computers. LOM is basically standard equipment on all but very low end server hardware.

    11. Re:ssh by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thankfully, nobody runs Linux on enterprise-class hardware.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    12. Re:ssh by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      A true enterprise class machine doesn't have extra stuff installed that can be used against it. For example, a compiler.

    13. Re:ssh by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      "Enterprise Class" means easy to manage - it doesn't specifically mean more secure.

      But even if it did, if someone can get the source code on to a machine to use a compiler, then they can use a compiler on another machine and copy the resultant binary. Removing the compiler is sacrificing convenience for no actual gain in security.

      In any case - there's nothing about the post you're replying to that necessarily implies a compiler was on the machine. Most likely you'd compile the new kernel once, on a machine running your SOE, create and operating system package for it, then deploy it to all the affected machines.
      If one doesn't reboot after the update, then the remote management interface the grandparent was referring to will allow you to interact with the machine's console without the OS running.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    14. Re:ssh by Type-R · · Score: 1

      lol, yeah, cause finding another machine to compile (or cross-compile) on is SUCH an inconvenience... </sarcasm>

      No compilers on a server just make it harder to fix, harder to maintain, etc.

    15. Re:ssh by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      "Most People" running systems important enough to require an emergency kernel recompile on a Sunday, and who would do it over SSH rather than driving in to the office probably have all the aforementioned equipment.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    16. Re:ssh by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't really see the point. While I'm all for taking things you don't need off of a server facing the internet, you often need a compiler, and if someone has broken into your server and is at the point where they could compile some code, you're already pretty screwed.

    17. Re:ssh by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you, but if someone has your machine hacked enough that they could compile and run new nasty code on it if a compiler were present, uploading a compiler to it will be very easy for them and doesn't really present a hurdle at all.

    18. Re:ssh by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      Given the ease of getting a ready-compiled compiler anyway, there's not a lot of point in not leaving a compiler on a machine where you might occasionally have to compile something. It's just cutting off your balls to annoy your dick. If someone has got into your machine, you're already shafted. Not having a compiler around is really only delaying the inevitable.

      What would be a bit more interesting would be if you had a special hacked kernel/GCC combo, so that your kernel would only run binaries that had been created with your special GCC. And even then, it's probably enough to keep the "occasional use only" stuff on a partition that is usually kept unmounted. (Especially if you had a specially-hacked fdisk binary that would not report the existence of this partition and kept the real fdisk in your "occasional use only" space.)

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    19. Re:ssh by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Don't the staff in your co-lo already know the procedure for dealing with LI inside-out? Boot from nearest available CD with a kernel on it, make a mountpoint, mount usual / partition there, chroot into it, run lilo (which doesn't actually alter boot block yet, just makes record in cache), exit chroot environment (to force decaching, now boot block gets written: if you reboot from while you are still within the chroot, the boot block may not be changed and you will have to repeat the procedure) and reboot.

      We've all forgotten to run lilo -- anyone who says they haven't probably hasn't compiled and installed a kernel. And that's why decent co-location facilities have people on hand, 24*7*52.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    20. Re:ssh by Teun · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it doesn't handle dual booting too well...


      ;)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    21. Re:ssh by kv9 · · Score: 1

      don't agree with your assertion that "most people" would have terminal servers and remote power control units, but rock on. unless you run your "production systems" in your grandma's basement(s), any half decent datacenter should have that basic equipment.
    22. Re:ssh by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      1. Reboot syncs all devices.
      2. No one uses lilo for at least five years now.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    23. Re:ssh by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      1. Reboot syncs all devices.
      You'd think so, wouldn't you? But if you run lilo from within a chroot (ext3 / ext2 file system), it doesn't seem to affect the boot block straightaway: if you reboot straight after running lilo without exiting the chroot, you still get LI. If you exit the chroot and then reboot, it works.

      Strictly speaking, the foregoing should be in the past tense, because I haven't had it happen to me for awhile. And maybe that behaviour was confined to the versions of kernel, lilo and chroot we were using then. At any rate, one extra press of ctrl+D and the forced sync that follows (and which would have had to be done anyway, just as part of the "main" sync due to rebooting rather than separately) is a small price to pay for having it work everytime.

      2. No one uses lilo for at least five years now.
      Unless they were already using lilo before grub became popular, and decided to stick with something that wasn't broken and didn't need fixing .....
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    24. Re:ssh by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You'd think so, wouldn't you? But if you run lilo from within a chroot (ext3 / ext2 file system), it doesn't seem to affect the boot block straightaway: if you reboot straight after running lilo without exiting the chroot, you still get LI. If you exit the chroot and then reboot, it works. All devices are global -- it does not matter if you are in chroot or not when you perform I/O on them. It is possible that some version of reboot procedure relies on syncing performed on unmounting the filesystems, and therefore misses the cached writes made to block devices directly, but then exiting chroot does nothing for it, at best it spends time so more likely the data will get automatically updated.

      Unless they were already using lilo before grub became popular, and decided to stick with something that wasn't broken and didn't need fixing ..... Except that lilo does need "fixing" -- every time a kernel gets updated. GRUB is much safer in this respect -- even if your configuration is completely wrong, you can still make it boot some kernel file with whatever options you need as long as it is installed at all.
      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    25. Re:ssh by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Of course it does.

      I can boot off a virtual CD a thousand miles away if I want. Remote console is like being there. Hell it's even useful to use it in the same building so you don't have to stand up in front of a KVM in a cold, loud room. IP KVM's are similar, but a poor second to the RILO that is in HP servers for example. They do a LOT.

  14. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by PKJedi · · Score: 1

    Just an account will do, it works over ssh etc.

  15. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by radu.stanca · · Score: 1

    "This is a local exploit in that kernel version range, in other words instigated by someone at a keyboard connected to the host and with an existing user account on the machine."
    Not actually, think of those gazillions of PHP scripts vulnerable to file inclusions or any other issues that let you run code or execute any commands from remote.
  16. Inside a Vserver on Grsec/PAX it seems save by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can't get a rootshell on a Vserver + a Grsec/PAX kernel ("Illegal instruction"), however the non virtualized "root system" itself can be rooted from anyone.

    My desktop system here (2.6.23.14) naturally has no chance.

  17. That's still pretty dangerous by Random+Walk · · Score: 1

    Every other day bugs get detected in web applications, allowing an intruder to run arbitrary code under the webserver UID. This exploit means each of these bugs gives way to root privileges.

  18. Is this x86/x86_64 only? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The proof-of-concept code only supports x86 and x86_64. Does that mean other architectures are immune?

    1. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by cnettel · · Score: 2, Informative

      As it's all about VM handling, I'm not sure, maybe some platform might give a panic, maybe some will use a different codepath, but it seems to be high-level enough that it is common code for all architectures. However, the only parts that are specific for x86 and x64 in the actual exploit are really the exploit code that's called within the kernel. As it is inline assembler and calling-convention specific, one would need a separate set for each platform. This is just like a user-space buffer overflow needs a specific exploit per platform, although there might be a common bug.

    2. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      The proof-of-concept code only supports x86 and x86_64. Does that mean other architectures are immune? No.
    3. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by Zoxed · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The proof-of-concept code only supports x86 and x86_64. Does that mean other architectures are immune?

      I heard that the Debian Architecture group are working through the night to ensure it will work on *all* of their supported platforms. Should be on your favourite mirror by Monday lunchtime !!

    4. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by dissy · · Score: 1

      The proof-of-concept code only supports x86 and x86_64. Does that mean other architectures are immune? It would appear thats not the case, any arch the kernel runs on with this module is vulnerable.

      If you planned to exploit it on a non-x86 platform, you just need to get some shellcode for that cpu to take advantage of it. I'm sure the proof of concept wouldnt go that far, but a bad guys exploit tool would.
    5. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Informative
      The POC code needs to have different alignments for x86 and x86_64 but that in itself does not mean that the same concept could not be used to break other architectures, (eg. ARM which probably runs the majority of Linux systems out there... all the phones etc).

      What is important is whether the explotable code is being run. This is only relevant to VMs. Very few Linux phones etc will be using VMs and probably none are using this explotable architecture.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    6. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      You are a tard. vmsplice in this case refers to a virtual memory splice call, for zero copy operations. It is used to move data from file descriptor to file descriptor. It is not used by many applications at all yet, but it has been compiled by default into most kernels recently.

    7. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The proof-of-concept code only supports x86 and x86_64. Does that mean other architectures are immune?

      It is just problem getting pointer to the current task structure while being in kernel-mode. Without access to the kernel procedures (symbols), but being able to execute code in that mode, there's no uniform way to get that pointer. It is accessible differently on different architectures (e.g. under AMD64 it is accessible through the GS register), thus the different code for the IA-32 and AMD64 architectures.

    8. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    9. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the patches, the problem is a missing acces_ok() to validate addresses. At least m68k, sparc64 and
      parisc are immune since on these architectures access_ok always returns one (i.e., is completely optimized out by the compiler): the hardware uses a different mechanism to access user space (i.e., the user and kernel space are completely separate and get_user/put_user cannot mess with kernel space).

      I don't know about other architectures, there would be ways to make PPC32 behave like m68k, but not PPC64 AFAICT. I'm almost certain that MIPS, ia64, alpha and arm are vulnerable.

      However, how many people are running non x86 hardware these days; boy how do I hate that kind of monoculture: a minimum of biodiversity is absolutely necessary, and given the results of AMD, an absolute monopoly of Intel might not be that far away.

    10. Re:Is this x86/x86_64 only? by kelnos · · Score: 1

      (eg. ARM which probably runs the majority of Linux systems out there... all the phones etc). Not sure if it's true that ARM systems are the majority where Linux is concerned (I'd doubt it), but, regardless, most ARM systems that run Linux probably run uCLinux 2.4, which isn't affected. Only recently has 2.6 been useful on MMU-less systems (most ARM CPUs in actual use in embedded applications don't have an MMU). And even then, I doubt an embedded device would be using a very recent kernel. At work we just started development on a new embedded system with a MIPS processor, and the chipset vendor's recommended 2.6 kernel (i.e., what they did their SDK development on) is 2.6.15.
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  19. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by tabrisnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Inaccurate. It does require shell access, but it does not require it to be physically local.

    A 'local root exploit' only means that you have to have a shell of some kind first. This can include an SSH shell account. This can also include any kind of non-root shell exploit.

    Say that you can exploit some webapp to get a shell as wwwrun/apache/www. That combined with a local root exploit to get root. It doesn't even need to be a DIRECT shell exploit. Perhaps your hack/program opens up a port with telnet listening.

    Thus all 'local root exploits' are potential remote exploits, if we allow for chaining. Chaining can be used by anyone who isn't just a script kiddie. Hell, you could probably make an auto-rooter that will chain the exploits.

  20. Does not work!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The exploit works, but the suggested file name does not, at least for me. Any guy here succeeding?
    /*
      * jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c
      *
      * Dovalim z knajpy a cumim ze Wojta zas nema co robit, kura.
      * Gizdi, tutaj mate cosyk na hrani, kym aj totok vykeca.
      * Stejnak je to stare jak cyp a aj jakesyk rozbite.
      *
      * Linux vmsplice Local Root Exploit
      * By qaaz
      *
      * Linux 2.6.17 - 2.6.24.1
      *
      * This is quite old code and I had to rewrite it to even compile.
      * It should work well, but I don't remeber original intent of all
      * the code, so I'm not 100% sure about it. You've been warned ;)
      *
      * -static -Wno-format
      */

  21. I am so depressed ... by Cytlid · · Score: 1

    ... I compiled it and ran it.

    And I'm not vulnerable. Assuming vmsplice is for the new KVM code, I use vmware and qemu for virtulization. (I have no need for xen or kvm until I get a svm/vmx flag in my cpu).

    So my vanilla-hand-compiled-with-only-certain-static-options 2.6.24 kernel on a highly customized slack 10.2 is safe.

    --
    FLR
    1. Re:I am so depressed ... by Cytlid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh oh. There's another link, (not the one from the /. article) that worked on my machine:

      http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/5093

      Notice the original article links to 5092.

      --
      FLR
    2. Re:I am so depressed ... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Second verson doesn't even compile for me: /tmp/cctpc16q.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cctpc16q.s:118: Error: Incorrect register `%rax' used with `l' suffix

      First one even works within a xen virtual machine, which I would have thought it couldn't do because of the hypervisor.

      Doesn't seem to work on my virtual machine in the US - 'function not implemented' error. So that's safe.

      Now I've got to work out how to patch all my flippin' machines on a sunday night... sigh...

    3. Re:I am so depressed ... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      uhhh, so did you or didn't you have vmsplice compiled?

      If you didn't then this exploit is worse than we thought.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:I am so depressed ... by Cytlid · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did a "grep -i" on the term "splice" in my /usr/src/linux/.config and it came up empty.

        I did not include KVM support in my kernel on purpose.

        As this http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=9;filename=patch;att=1;bug=464953 patch points out, it's in the general fs splice.c code, so I think it is more serious than I originally had thought.

        For some reason, (if someone can substantiate this I would appreciate it) I could get neither code to work on a CentOS 4.6 machine setup as a server).

        I'm buying into the idea that it may be based (a little) on kernel config options, but an official patch would be bet

      --
      FLR
    5. Re:I am so depressed ... by MT628496 · · Score: 1

      I compiled it. . .and found I wasn't infected because gcc couldn't find asm/page.h

    6. Re:I am so depressed ... by nuclear_zealot · · Score: 3, Informative
      I got the same thing, so I edited the one line: (brackets edited out)

      #include asm/page.h to read:

      #include /usr/lib/klibc/include/asm/page.h and *poof* the exploit compiles and works on my 2.6.24 x86_64 box. Don't feel safe yet. :)

      BTW: Has anyone figured out if there is an option you can disable in make menuconfig that removes vmsplice(), or is it integral to the kernel?
    7. Re:I am so depressed ... by Abattoir · · Score: 1
      I could get neither code to work on a CentOS 4.6 machine setup as a server

      I was able to compile the code on a CentOS 5.1 system and the exploit worked.

    8. Re:I am so depressed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CentOS 4.x is not vulnerable.
      CentOS 5.x is (I verified on x86_64)

    9. Re:I am so depressed ... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Side note: While the patch is aimed at 2.6.18, it is easy to add it to later kernels manually. I just added it 2.6.23.14, with no apparent problems (running for about an hour now).

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:I am so depressed ... by OwenMarshall · · Score: 1

      Did the patch (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=712a30e63c8066ed84385b12edbfb804f49cbc44) not fix the second exploit?

    11. Re:I am so depressed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centos 4.6 is based on RHEL4 which uses a kernel based on the 2.6.9 version and therefore does not have the exploit that was introduced in 2.6.17. This could be a reason why Redhat has not received many reports of the rootkit resposible for this: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/24/1930207 perhaps due to there being more installations of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu than there are RHEL5/Centos5.

    12. Re:I am so depressed ... by Cytlid · · Score: 1

      I have a torrent coming in, finishing in about 30 mins, I applied that patch you pointed out (leave it to kernel dudes to make it so elegant as to be solely one line). When I can reboot I'll reply back.

      --
      FLR
    13. Re:I am so depressed ... by Cytlid · · Score: 1

      No, the patch from Linus' git repository doesn't fix the 2nd exploit. Rebooted with the new splice.o and same thing happens.

      --
      FLR
    14. Re:I am so depressed ... by mrmagos · · Score: 1

      ... I compiled it and ran it.

      And I'm not vulnerable. Don't be so sure. The first time I ran it, it dropped me into root. However, I decided to run it a second time, and I got a segfault. Third time, it gave me a "wtf." I had to run it about a dozen more time before it dropped me into root again. Run it a few more times, just to be sure. It is just proof-of-concept code, after all.
      --
      Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
    15. Re:I am so depressed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you need to grep -i for splice in the Makefile in /usr/src/linux/fs

      I wouldn't think you'll see anything in the .config file regardless if splice.o is used or not?

    16. Re:I am so depressed ... by Leolo · · Score: 1

      CentOS 4.6 uses the 2.6.9 kernel. This exploit is for 2.6.17 - 2.6.24

    17. Re:I am so depressed ... by kelnos · · Score: 1

      I did a "grep -i" on the term "splice" in my /usr/src/linux/.config and it came up empty. vmsplice is not a kernel option. All kernels from 2.6.17 on have it regardless of configuraion, I believe. grep through your System.map file instead to check for the symbol.
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    18. Re:I am so depressed ... by breun · · Score: 1

      CentOS 4 comes with a 2.6.9 kernel, so yeah, it won't work on CentOS 4.

  22. Funny comments :) by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are some pretty funny comments in the source code, regrettably, most people won't understand them. Hell, as a Czech, I *am* probably supposed to understand them, if it were not for the obscure north-eastern dialect of Czech that all the rest of our country finds hilarious (and incomprehensible at the same time).

    "Dovalim z knajpy a cumim ze Wojta zas nema co robit, kura." == something like "Just returned from the pub and saw that Wojta [a machine? Or a person? Unclear...] has nothing to do." [The last word might be a Czech expletive with a typo...?]
    "Gizdi, tutaj mate cosyk na hrani, kym aj totok vykeca." == something like "Here's something for you to play with, boys, ..." [last for four words utterly incomprehensible :)]
    "Stejnak je to stare jak cyp a aj jakesyk rozbite." == "Anyway, it's old as hell and somehow broken anyway"

    The style (no way am I able to render *this* in English :)) makes me think that had drunk quite a bit before he wrote these gems. Pity that I don't have a good dictionary of spicy English. I'm just rolling on the floor and seriously laughing. :) Oh, and the exploit works, which is not that *funny*.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Funny comments :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool.
      Next time someone reminds me I'm using an OS written by an evil corporation, I know I could always get back to one written by drunk students.

      I feel... so... safe...

    2. Re:Funny comments :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that the comments were in the exploit code, not in the kernel code?

    3. Re:Funny comments :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last four words of that sentence are: "... until (s)he will babble about this". ;-)

    4. Re:Funny comments :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It looks more like a Polish/East Slovak dialect to me.
      "kura" is probably "kurva" - literally "whore", but here it's just used as a interjection.
      "kym aj totok vykeca." ... until he (Wojta) spills the beans.

  23. Ni-pah~! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464953

    The workaround posted in a follow-up in that thread works. I had a few vulnerable (tested) machines that I cannot reboot even if a patched kernel is released in the near future. I tried that fix, then tried the exploit again. The exploit no longer worked after using the fix (workaround).

    Those machines were debian x64.

    Ubuntu kernels do not appear to have vmsplice enabled by default.

    1. Re:This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I should say.. the ubuntu machines I tested it on do not appear to have vmsplice enabled. YMMV.

    2. Re:This workaround works by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      I am confused. You say Ubuntu kernels don't have vmsplice enabled, but why then there is bug report on this? I really doubt those people compiled their kernels by their own.

      Can you clarify this statement? This is important for me. Already thanks for pointing it out.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    3. Re:This workaround works by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      The parent bug for this is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464945

      This also has a patch to the debian kernel tree to fix it: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=54;filename=patch;att=1;bug=464945

      Hopefully will hit the apt mirrors shortly, as I don't fancy trying to get my head around make-kpkg (which never worked for me) at 10pm on a Sunday.

    4. Re:This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 1

      If you read my follow-up to my own post, you would have seen that I corrected myself to say that it didn't work on my Ubuntu machines that I tested (I was using Ubuntu-packaged kernels, but running the exploit code showed that vmsplice was disabled), though it apparently does work on Ubuntu.

    5. Re:This workaround works by Pecisk · · Score: 2, Informative

      To answer to myself, tried exploit on Feisty, doesn't work (segfaults). Not sure about Gutsy or Hardy yet.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    6. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the fix on my laptop, and after that the exploit didn't work anymore, but the laptop also crashed seconds after that... (and the laptop normally never crashes, so I'm very inclined to believe it was related)

      So it's not something _I_ will be trying on machines that are so important that rebooting them is not an option...

    7. Re:This workaround works by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Preliminary builds are up I see:

      http://134.2.34.20/blank/debian/linux-2.6/

      However it looks like a single users' server so don't slashdot him (or at least do it gently :p).

    8. Re:This workaround works by arabagast · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ubuntu 7.10, latest generic kernel image (standard image) is affected

      Linux kenshu 2.6.22-14-generic #1 SMP Fri Feb 1 04:59:50 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

      --
      Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
      Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
    9. Re:This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 1

      The machines that I tested were running the 7.04 kernel:

      ryan@scarecrow:~$ uname -a
      Linux scarecrow 2.6.20-16-generic #2 SMP Sun Sep 23 19:50:39 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

    10. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was enabled on my Ubuntu kernel, 2.6.22-14-generic.

      Patched it with that fix, problem solved while waiting for a new kernel to come down the pipe (as to why not compile it myself, no time, that's why I'm using a distro with a packaging system).

    11. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I can't confirm that. The exploit works with my Ubuntu 2.6.22 kernel (on i368) and the hotfix by Morten Hustveit got my machine hanging completely within seconds.

    12. Re:This workaround works by annihilizard · · Score: 0

      I've run this exploit on two ubuntu 7.10 machines and it's worked quite well.

    13. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the proof-of-concept code gained root access on my machine, and I had a pretty close to default install of Kubuntu. So maybe not all flavors of *Ubuntu are safe?

    14. Re:This workaround works by Morten+Hustveit · · Score: 1

      the hotfix by Morten Hustveit got my machine hanging completely within seconds.

      Sorry about that. Most of the machines I have tested the patch on (more than 10) were Ubuntu boxes running 2.6.22-14-generic, some ia32 and some amd64. I'd appreciate any info that could help to isolate the machines that can't handle the fix.

    15. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dreaming? Just confirmed that on a well updated Ubuntu system:

      2.6.22-14-generic #1 SMP Tue Dec 18 08:02:57 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

      Ubuntu kernels *do* have vmsplice enabled and are vulnerable by default.

    16. Re:This workaround works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploit works on Ubuntu 7.10 (i386), fails on Ubuntu 7.04 (i386). Patch worked on 7.10, didn't bother to try on 7.04.

    17. Re:This workaround works by Seismologist · · Score: 1

      I've used this "reverse exploit" and it works... this is a lot faster than waiting for the head scratching to end at the Ububtu launchpad. Is there anyway to get this link into the main post?...?

      --
      ~ In Trust, We Trust ~
    18. Re:This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 1

      It essentially already is. The link to the Debian bugtracker has a link to the "reverse exploit" code.

    19. Re:This workaround works by ShroudedNight · · Score: 1

      To answer to myself, tried exploit on Feisty, doesn't work (segfaults). Not sure about Gutsy or Hardy yet. Exploit confirmed in Ubuntu 7.10 (2.6.22-14-generic)
    20. Re:This workaround works by Flibberdy · · Score: 1

      Hardy is affected by this bug, but the modified exploit successfully fixes it.

    21. Re:This workaround works by Eil · · Score: 1

      I had a few vulnerable (tested) machines that I cannot reboot even if a patched kernel is released in the near future.

      I'm a little confused by this statement. Do you mean to say that these machines are so mission-critical that they can't have a couple minutes downtime in the middle of the night? If this is true, and you have no failover or redundancy to keep the service itself online while one machine is down, then I think you have much bigger things to worry about than a little root exploit.

    22. Re:This workaround works by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 1

      No, the machine is 1000 miles away and I don't feel like dealing with it if it doesn't come back up.

    23. Re:This workaround works by WindShadow · · Score: 1

      The exploit no longer works, but then neither does vmsplice.

      Given that this assumes an attacker has, or can compile, evil code already on the machine, the cure may be worse than the disease, depending on how much you rely on vmsplice in your applications.

  25. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people with a local account and shell on a $5/month linux webhosting plan. Many of those people don't know what they're doing (the users and the admins), use guesable passwords, etc. Add in the phpbb, etc. exploits and every script kiddy in the world has shell access to a linux machine.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  26. Neat, but... by kickmyassman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Managed to get it to run on my machine (Debian). Gave me root access just as promised. Funny though that I still can't run administrative functions (like ifconfig) without running them with an absolute path (little comfort though).

    1. Re:Neat, but... by BJH · · Score: 1

      It upgraded your rights but didn't replace your environment.

      Just add /sbin and /usr/sbin to your PATH.

    2. Re:Neat, but... by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      I still can't run administrative functions (like ifconfig) without running them with an absolute path
      That's only because /sbin and /usr/sbin didn't get put in your path, which is set at login. It is the same as the difference between "su" and "su -l" (the later working as a login shell).
    3. Re:Neat, but... by baadger · · Score: 1

      Or just type "su" to drop into a full super user environment?

    4. Re:Neat, but... by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      su - if you want all the enviroment settings

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  27. Worked on Mandriva as well by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    using the 2.6.22.15-laptop-1.uc1mdv Mandriva-supplied kernel.

  28. This flaw is CVE-2008-0600 by iamamoose · · Score: 5, Informative

    Upstream patch for the vulnerability tickled by that specific exploit is here
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=712a30e63c8066ed84385b12edbfb804f49cbc44

    Red Hat tracking bug (Enterprise Linux 5 is affected, but 4,3, and 2.1 are not)
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432251

    Fedora tracking bug
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432229

    1. Re:This flaw is CVE-2008-0600 by icydog · · Score: 2, Informative

      This worked on my Fedora box both locally (i.e. keyboard) as well as through SSH. However, it did NOT work on my CentOS 5 installation. The box locked up hard and now I have to call someone to reboot it... silly me...

    2. Re:This flaw is CVE-2008-0600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does that patch differ from the following one (which also, supposedly, fixes the exploit) ?

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/11/25

      Which is the right/better patch?

  29. Live patch available from Debian by lgftsa · · Score: 1

    FYI, there's a live patch available as a link[1] in the Debian bug tracker which modifies the exploit to patch the vmsplice() call with a RET as the first instruction. Run it at boot and you'll be fine, unless an attacker can jump to the next instruction instead...

    [1] http://www.ping.uio.no/~mortehu/disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c

  30. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Doesn't require shell access, it only requires the ability to run arbitrary code. If you're able to upload a program or CGI script that will run on the box, then you can upload this exploit code in its place.

    There's nothing special about "/bin/bash" exploitation can just as easily be another program you upload that is run instead of a shell.

  31. where to find in menuconfig by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is vmsplice part of virtualization found in Device Drivers > Virtualization (and the submenu within the said location)?

    if so then mine is ok as i dont build that in my kernel, if this is something else where can it be found in menuconfig?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:where to find in menuconfig by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      No, it's nothing to do with virtualization, it's about interacting with pipes. vmsplice() lets you put data into a pipe without having to copy it.

      I can't find a configuration option for it; it's probably a bit fine-grained even for Linux.

  32. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    So could it be run on computers with public shell access (connected via SSH)?

  33. Whatever... by dowdle · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so you have a fantastic sysadmin who compiles everything and tweeks it just so... and then (s)he goes away... and you are left with an unmaintainable mess that has to be completely figured out by the next person. Sounds like something I want... NOT.

    --
    Scott Dowdle
    www.MontanaLinux.Org
    1. Re:Whatever... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, heaven forbid that you rely on employees not being mindless drones. Far better to hire a highly paid consultant to deindispensableize them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Whatever... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell you what. I'll go off and compile a kernel with lord only knows what packages and options enabled and disabled and spend days fine-tuning every last cycle out of some obscure feature, then drop it on your desk and tell you to upgrade something. 12 hours later, when you're cursing it for refusing to compile because I altered some bizzare dependancy which nobody in their right mind would recompile --with-extended-range-bypassing-support-mode-library-retrograde, come to me and I'll tell you you're a mindless drone.

      Far more sensible in a corporate environment is to stick to the published stuff, so when it goes tits up you can call support and say "Fix it", or when your sysadmin leaves the incoming guy doesn't have to work out why the server is configured to behave in a way which "will be really great" but actually means everybody's mail is delivered in Swahili.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    3. Re:Whatever... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get the impression the 'custom kernel' brigade have never worked on a corporate environment.

      Out there in the real world you use RHEL because it has paid support. You then use hardware certified by Redhat and use their packages (btw. RHEL doesn't appear to be vulnerable - you get an mmap failure trying to run the exploit).

      If your oracle server goes titsup and oracle refuse to support you because although you're running on the supported RHEL your cowboy IT guy recompiled the kernel and broke it.. that costs money (potentially millions if the downtime is extended). And time. And stress. And the IT guy's job, and his job reference, and, we would hope, his career.

    4. Re:Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily giving bad references and blackballing people is illegal, and one can sue and get so rich, one's career will be figuring out how many Benzs one can buy each year off the interest from the judgment he was awarded.

    5. Re:Whatever... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      No, giving false references is illegal. If the offending admin was responsible for a shoddily configured server then you can say so in a reference.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  34. Fuck, this is bad by ceeam · · Score: 0, Troll

    Linus's VM games strike again. Crap. Can we please have some stable kernels again? Any hope?

    In the mean time I only use FreeBSD for my servers.

    1. Re:Fuck, this is bad by mvdwege · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, we know you are l33t.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:Fuck, this is bad by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry... I should've posted yet another joke about MSWindows and go like - "it's OSS, no problem, tomorrow the patch will be out and I will have no problem updating kernel on all my servers and rebooting them", right?

    3. Re:Fuck, this is bad by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      What was that saying again? "It is better to keep silent and appear wise..."?

      In the meantime, you can take your strawman and stick it with your BSD superiority complex.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  35. Actual trial of the exploit..... by Oxide · · Score: 1

    [hity@localhost ~]$ kwrite expl.c
    [hity@localhost ~]$ gcc -o expl -O expl.c
    [hity@localhost ~]$ ./expl
    [+] mmap: 0x0 .. 0x1000
    [+] page: 0x0
    [+] page: 0x20
    [+] mmap: 0x4000 .. 0x5000
    [+] page: 0x4000
    [+] page: 0x4020
    [+] mmap: 0x1000 .. 0x2000
    [+] page: 0x1000
    [+] mmap: 0xb7f98000 .. 0xb7fca000
    [+] root
    [root@localhost ~]# damn what a nasty hole :(

    1. Re:Actual trial of the exploit..... by philicorda · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to get it working. Perhaps the RT kernels are immune.

      [+] mmap: 0x0 .. 0x1000
      [+] page: 0x0
      [+] page: 0x20
      [+] mmap: 0x4000 .. 0x5000
      [+] page: 0x4000
      [+] page: 0x4020
      [+] mmap: 0x1000 .. 0x2000
      [+] page: 0x1000
      [+] mmap: 0xb7e44000 .. 0xb7e76000
      Segmentation fault

      uname -a
      Linux planet 2.6.22-14-rt #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Mon Oct 15 01:05:51 GMT 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

    2. Re:Actual trial of the exploit..... by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      Man thank God I looked at the Wikipedia page about slashdot before joining. It warned me about goatse =)

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    3. Re:Actual trial of the exploit..... by hav0x · · Score: 1

      ~$ gcc -o jessica_biel_sure_is_hot.i386 jessica_biel_is_hawt.c
      ~$ ./jessica_biel_sure_is_hot.i386
      [.snip.]
      [+] page: 0x1000
      [+] mmap: 0xb7de2000 .. 0xb7e14000
      [+] root
      ~# fukken saved!
      oh snap!

      I actually laughed, then went about to fix it.
    4. Re:Actual trial of the exploit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't...

      although after hitting many hidden links for goatse, cupchick, meatspin, et al, I seem to be fairly mentally bulletproof.

      I am of the internet generation, I am invincible against your shock s... oh... my... god...

      brain bleach please...

    5. Re:Actual trial of the exploit..... by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I get a segv if I compile it with as a.out with 'gcc crap.c' but the exploit works with 'gcc -o crap crap.c'... (stock 6.24 kernel and fc-8 6.23xxx).

  36. Re:But this can't be real! by eitreach · · Score: 1

    Mm. Nonsense-generalising makes the world go round. Be sure to check for virusses installed while you wrote your message.

  37. Re:But this can't be real! by ceeam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Y'know - Windows is bad not only because it has "defects" but primarily, IMO, because it's so weak, it's basically defective by design with no hopes of fixing. For example - when it's gonna have a real filesystem with name/file (or inode if you like) separation? So I can do updates of things without reboots? So I can rename/replace/delete the file even if it's (gasp) opened or if some other process has CWD in the directory I want moved/deleted?

    Or ulimits? Will Windows ever have those? How do you even run any real server without ulimits?

    Etc...

  38. Paging Dr. Zelenka... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Dr. Zelenka knows what this says...

    1. Re:Paging Dr. Zelenka... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm not that sure, his actor was born in Prague. :-) But I appreciate that you know about us. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  39. Re:But this can't be real! by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For example - when it's gonna have a real filesystem with name/file (or inode if you like) separation?

    NTFS has had that for a while now.

    Or ulimits? Will Windows ever have those? How do you even run any real server without ulimits?

    Suggest you check out Windows System Resource Manager

    The real problem here seems to be not Windows, but your ignorance about Windows.

  40. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by kasperd · · Score: 1

    Nope, all you need is remote access to a local user account via ssh or something. Many users use weak passwords.
    I recently disabled password based ssh logins on all my machines. Not because my passwords are weak, but because the steady stream of failing login attempts makes me paranoid. Now you first have to get to my key before you can even start trying to brute force the password.
    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  41. noexec by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

    My server which has a vanilla 2.6.23.15 is vulnerable. But I don't worry because everyone else's home except mine is on a noexec volume. tmp and var are too. Another win for noexec :)

    But I subscribe to a webhost service that is vulnerable. Hackers are probably reading my e-mail as we speak. :(

    1. Re:noexec by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      noexec can't be trusted. Before it was fixed it was enough to do:

      $ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 ./vmsplice_bug

      I know of a couple of other ways.. convoluted but they exist.

    2. Re:noexec by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Could you not theoretically run the exploit yourself and use your newly found root access to install one of the "no reboot required" patches?

      Just think of the irony...

    3. Re:noexec by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exploit the vulnerability in order to fix it. That is quite funny. :)

    4. Re:noexec by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      The noexec option is just about as secure as assuming there are not ways around a chroot. Nothing saying you can't pipe a script into perl or bash. Or as sonmeelse pointed out http://lazzybear.blogspot.com/2007/01/bypass-no-exec-option-on-mount.html

    5. Re:noexec by robo_mojo · · Score: 1
      In your ld-linux.so example, if your ld-linux.so is running executables from a noexec fs, you've got a bug. When I try it I get this:

      [user@host ~]$ /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /bin/echo hello
      hello
      [user@host ~]$ cp /bin/echo /tmp/echo
      [user@host ~]$ /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /tmp/echo hello
      /tmp/echo: error while loading shared libraries: /tmp/echo: failed to map segment from shared object: Operation not permitted
      [user@host ~]$


      As for the rest:

      Nothing saying you can't pipe a script into perl or bash.
      Scripts are an entirely different beast. They don't (normally) allow execution of arbitrary code without the appropriate permissions (non-interpreted code that is). If they do, it's a bug and should be fixed. If you're worried about scripting, you're worried about bash altogether, so you might as well disable login for the user in that case. Using noexec at least lets you give the user a login shell.

  42. SELinux? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, I can tell you that SELinux (enforcing, targeted) on Fedora 8 was no help in preventing this exploit. Does "strict" make a difference?

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    1. Re:SELinux? by tc1415 · · Score: 1

      You could configure SELinux to deny access to the vmsplice() call, but as users run in unconfined_t, this is not the default.

  43. Denial does not help by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Sure, this might be a function that most users don't need, but it is compiled in for most so it is there, and exploitable, whether it is needed or not.

    How many Ubuntu-ites recompile stripped kernels? Ubuntu is supposed to be this touchy-feely Linux where you don't have to have a pet kernel hacker, just install the CDs. If you're arguing that Ubuntu-ites should rebuild kernels then you're missing the point of Ubuntu.

    The healthy thing to do here is what most people are doing: accept that there has been a screw-up, fix it and learn from the experience.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Denial does not help by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      You forgot the 2 rules of being a cranky IT guy:

      1. It's always the user's fault.

      2. If it isn't the user's fault, see rule 1.

  44. Re:But this can't be real! by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nonsense-generalising makes the world go round.

    You mean like how Linux zealots are constantly bashing Windows for "being bad"?

  45. which kernel option to disable in menuconfig? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    So which `make menuconfig' option needs to be disabled to effectively eliminate this vulnerability? In `Device Drivers->Virtualization', I have nothinng selected in my running kernel's config, yet it's still vulnerable when I run the exploit. From what I gathered by googling, you want to disable the CONFIG_MMU kernel option, but instead of doing it via editing the .config file, I'd rather do it in `make menuconfig' so that takes care of anything that may be depending on that option as well.

    1. Re:which kernel option to disable in menuconfig? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Nevermind. I was able to get rid of this vulnerability by compiling/running this as a normal user:

      http://www.ping.uio.no/~mortehu/disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c

      It worked fine on Ubuntu and Gentoo

  46. Curious... how do they find these bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of these bugs have extremely esoteric escape sequences that leave me wondering how they determine those to exploit faults in various programs (especially in something like the Linux kernel).

  47. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by joe+155 · · Score: 1

    because of needing the user password I wonder how different it is from attacking people who run ssh and sudo (as home users, it might be more effective against servers though). Last time I looked you could get root access on an Ubuntu box doing:

    sudo su -

    That's pretty serious too and I don't know if it has been closed, but assuming it hasn't then this problem just seems like a fancier way of doing the same thing... If anyone could test this out now I'd really be interested to see if it still gives root access without asking for a password (or if it does if the user password is enough).

    Although just thinking about it maybe removing the user from the sudo list might fix this, but that wouldn't work for ubuntu home boxes becaused they need access to sudo anyway

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  48. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

    Just tried it on a box with 2.6.18 with XEN and VServer patches; It did not succeed, however it did broadcast a general protection fault over all consoles - the addresses probably differ from the default due to the included patches.

    --
    Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
  49. yea but how do we disable it till its fixed? by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pardon me for the rookie question - but can anyone tell us which kernel config option enables this so-called vmsplice? I'm no even clear on what its for... if its something I don't need can I disable it through menuconfig or is it something that I'll need a patch to disable?

    1. Re:yea but how do we disable it till its fixed? by Fr1ek · · Score: 1

      I don't know how to disable it in the kernel configure, but I found this link from bugs.debian.org which actually works: http://www.ping.uio.no/~mortehu/disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c

  50. 'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The given exploit prints pointers using "%lx". That's wrong, and on x86-64 it will break (pointers are 8 bytes, longs are 4 bytes).

    Every instance of "0x%lx" needs to be replaced by "%p".

    The moral of this story is: Always use gcc -Wall and fraggin' pay attention to the warnings.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    1. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      %lx is 8 bytes in 64bit too. Your solution is technically correct but TBH I really don't think the coder was trying to produce a commercial quality piece of code here.. he was trying to prove the kernel is vulnerable.

      It runs absolutely fine on x86-64 (if you can call giving a normal user root 'fine').

    2. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, I just compiled it with Ubuntu 7.10 AMD64 and works like a charm.

    3. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm depends. On windows x86_64 ints and longs are 4bytes, but on most of the Linux systems I have seen (and mine incidentally) ints are 4 and longs are 8.

      Yes, he should be using %p, but his way still works.

    4. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      works on my x86-64, even though it emits warnings when compiled with -Wall

    5. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      Worked on my x86_64. I'm compiling a patched 2.6.23.15 now.

    6. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      long's are 8 bytes on x86_64 machines you dimwit.

      who the fuck moderated that up anyway? idiots

    7. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.
      I just compiled and successfully ran this exploit with no changes on:
      2.6.22.9-91.fc7 #1 SMP Thu Sep 27 20:47:39 EDT 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

    8. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

      Uh, sizeof(long) == 8 on x86-64.

      Moral of this story? Know what you are talking about. I'm not saying the code is great, but it's not broken in the way you suggest it is.

      -Serp

    9. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Alien_Phreak · · Score: 1

      So.. I was kind of excited hoping I could see this exploit work.

      I mostly run gentoo...

      x86_64 gentoo build: no go.
      x86 hardended kernel, gentoo: no go.

      I thought it was the 64 bit that was giving it problems since my laptop and tower are both 64bit builds. So far I can't seem to get it to work, so it might be a default that's enabled in certain kernels. I'm sure I disabled virtualization since I see no use of it right now.

      So, sadly, I couldn't get the exploit to work. :(
      good luck to everyone that has patching to do.

      --
      AP

    10. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Kirth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not only there:

      $ gcc -o jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c:138:2: error: #error "unsupported arch"
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c: In function 'kernel_code':
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c:159: warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c: In function 'main':
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c:211: error: 'PAGE_SIZE' undeclared (first use in this function)
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c:211: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
      jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c:211: error: for each function it appears in.)

      $ gcc -o 27704-2 27704-2.c /tmp/ccJWJWBA.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/ccJWJWBA.s:156: Error: Illegal operands /tmp/ccJWJWBA.s:156: Error: Unknown opcode: `andl' /tmp/ccJWJWBA.s:156: Error: Illegal operands

      Bloody x86-asm. Doesn't work on Sparc.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    11. Re:'Sploit needs fixing on x86-64 by Sinical · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, only Windows uses the retarded long/4 pointer/8 on 64-bit. Linux correctly has 8 byte longs and pointers for x86_64.

      #include

      int
      main(int argc, char *argv[])
      {
              printf("%lu %lu\n", sizeof(long), sizeof(void *));
              return 0;
      }

      $ gcc -Wall test.c -o test
      $ ./test
      8 8

      I agree that %p would be the better choice, but using '%lx' should only provoke warnings on a 32-bit distro.

  51. Re:How do I get infected? by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm hoping for your sake this was a troll, because the alternative is you're retarded.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  52. Re:How do I get infected? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    yea its a "local root exploit" as opposed to a "remote root exploit" which means it has to be run locally either by a user or somehow fed to a process capable of being tricked into running arbitrary code locally. as i understand it this is less of a concern for desktop installs because most hardware accelerated 3d graphics drivers for X are shot full of these types of exploits anyway due to the nature of the way they use the hardware, however the linux kernel itself is typically more secure than that.

  53. Re:How do I get infected? by dvice_null · · Score: 1

    Person who wants to exploit this hole, needs to get into to the system first and then that person can use the hole to get root access.
    So in general there is no danger to home users. Only servers that allow untrusted people to login are in danger. So most people have nothing to worry about. And those who need to worry, are most likely professionals or atleast they should be. And they can handle this, if they already hadn't.

  54. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

    Try certificate authentication - a bit harder to crack.

  55. Re:But this can't be real! by LingNoi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Stop trolling and flamebaiting.

  56. state the obvious by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

    You can't carefully compare Linux with proprietary products because they won't let you see the source, especially if you tell them you're going to carefully scrutinize it.

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  57. Re:HA HA by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Informative

    No it doesn't.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  58. slashdot not filtering well enough by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that slashdot's system for filtering submissions is doing a very poor job these days with stories about security bugs.

    Within the last day or two, we've had the following:

    1. Adobe PDF Exploits In the Wild - IMO this was not sufficiently well thought out to be useful. There has been a long series of problems with AR related to the fact that it allows javascript in pdf files to be executed, and that leads both to privacy problems (authors can track readers) and security problems (buffer overflows). But the article didn't specify whether it was such a problem. If it is such a problem, then the correct solution is to disable js in AR. In fact I'd already done that in AR 7, but if I'd blindly followed the advice from the article, here's what would have happened. I would have just upgraded to AR 8 and assumed the problem was fixed. But upgrading to AR 8 reenabled js, so in fact I'd be less secure than I'd been before.
    2. Serious Vulnerability In Firefox 2.0.0.12 -- Turns out to be FUD.
    3. OpenBSD Will Not Fix PRNG Weakness -- Possibly of interest to openbsd users, but basically what seems to be happening here is that each BSD's maintainers are making their own judgments about how serious the problem is, and the seriousness of the problem is a complicated and controversial question.
    4. Linux Kernel 2.6 Local Root Exploit -- The summary makes it sound as though this affects Ubuntu, but later on we get this post pointing out that it doesn't affect a default install of Ubuntu.

    This is really getting to be a Boy Who Cried Wolf thing.

    1. Re:slashdot not filtering well enough by caseih · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but as popular as Ubuntu is, Ubuntu is not === linux. Every x86 Linux machine I've tried this exploit on today has been vulnerable. SuSE, Redhat, Fedora, etc. Who's crying wolf? An exploit is an exploit and this one is a pretty big one, in terms of broad impact.

    2. Re:slashdot not filtering well enough by DCBoland · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/190587

      It's confirmed on some Ubuntu versions, and it works on my Ubuntu Gutsy (7.10) kernel (2.6.22-14).

      --
      I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
    3. Re:slashdot not filtering well enough by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Sensacionalistic titles for submissions always works in Slashdot. Always. I feel like reading Sun or some local junk press. Content and comments are different matter, of course.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    4. Re:slashdot not filtering well enough by wonnage · · Score: 1

      Did you bother to try this one yourself? Ubuntu 7.10 is definitely affected out of the box.

    5. Re:slashdot not filtering well enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My copy of Ubuntu was also affected by the exploit; and similary, patched by the workaround. I am using ubuntu 7.10 with the latest generic kernel image as well.

  59. Just fixed it. by nagora · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Read the bug, ran Vi, fixed exploit in Try that next time your Windows machine has an exploit.

    That's why I use an open-source OS. I can fix it when it breaks.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:Just fixed it. by nagora · · Score: 1
      Here's that post again, without angle brackets:

      Read the bug, ran Vi, fixed exploit in <30seconds. Recompiled kernel in <1min (since so little had changed). Rebooted. Safe.

      Try that next time your Windows machine has an exploit.

      That's why I use an open-source OS. I can fix it when it breaks.

      Although, apparently, I can't handle entering text on /.!

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:Just fixed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I use an open-source OS. I can fix it when it breaks.

      If you know that it exists.... your be amazed how many exploits there are on things you own that a number of people know about, but you don't....

    3. Re:Just fixed it. by DarkProphet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe you should try using EMACS to post on slashdot instead. *ducks*

      --
      What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
    4. Re:Just fixed it. by nagora · · Score: 1
      If you know that it exists.... your be amazed how many exploits there are on things you own that a number of people know about, but you don't...

      I wouldn't be that amazed, but at least I can fix those I do know about. With closed-source I can't fix any of 'em.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  60. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

    What's the difference between that and sudo -i? I tried it but couldn't verify much because my user password is the same as my root password. From what I saw it's the intended usage and not a bug as far as I could tell. su is deprecated in Ubuntu though.

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  61. Re:How do I get infected? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    Well, until someone exploits the weak permissions on your webserver to execute a binary, get root, and pwn your system completely.

    Local root exploits are serious if you run any kind of server - and lots of home users run things like apache these days.

  62. Ubuntu 7.10 generic kernel is affected. by ikarous · · Score: 5, Informative

    The poster who said that Ubuntu kernels are not affected was incorrect, at least partially. The exploit code works as advertised on my Ubuntu machines, both of which are running 7.10 with the latest generic kernel image.

  63. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by caluml · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have tested the exploit on a Linux VPS box within a VPS as a standard user, and it didn't work. Not sure if this is luck, kernel config, or good VPS design (Hello Bertl!), but either way I am happy.
    /me will start using GRSec again. It might not stop/have stopped this (I have no idea), but it's just an extra layer of difficulty.

  64. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    Use the fix-sploit that's been posted here when you log on next.

    Your documents are then safe.

  65. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    If you can execute code on it you can run the exploit. That's why it's so serious and why any admin worth their pay is either fixing it right now or will have it fixed by 9.05am Monday Morning.

  66. Re:But this can't be real! by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

    And who cares if we bash Windows, anyway? Are you honestly defending it? I presume that you simply find it annoying. Well... I find anti-windows-bashers extremely annoying. Almost as annoying as trolls...

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  67. So it is, I stand corrected by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

    Long is indeed 8 bytes. Int is still 4. Thanx.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  68. Creepy stuff by murmel90 · · Score: 1

    Shit.. This is some creepy stuff... Tried it on my VMWare machine.. worked just fine.. wich isn't that fine... murmel@server:~$ uname -r 2.6.24-custom murmel@server:~$ ./exp -- Linux vmsplice Local Root Exploit By qaaz -- [+] addr: 0xc011834b [+] root root@server:~# I hope this will get corrected soon...

  69. Re:But this can't be real! by genericpoweruser · · Score: 0

    LOL I think the legal term for that is "entrapment". You really just baited him to say exactly what you needed to make him look dumb...

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  70. Fix is already in git by EasyPrey · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Fix is already in git by EasyPrey · · Score: 1

      My bad. The fix is already in 2.6.24.1

      http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.24.1

      -EasyPrey

    2. Re:Fix is already in git by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its not. I just ran the exploit on my 2.6.24.1 kernel and its vulnerable.

  71. OpenSuSE 10.3 w latest kernel patch x86 as well. by anwyn · · Score: 1

    I just tried this with Opensuse 10.3 with kernel patch=kernel-default-2.6.22.16-0.2
    the exploit worked.

  72. The workaround was written on an Ubuntu-machine by Velmont · · Score: 1

    So it definitely works on Ubuntu.

    I just came home from the student computer society where Morten Hustveit wrote the quick workaround.

  73. 2.6.24.1 is Not Vulnerable by iive · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here is the first entry in the latest kernel ChangeLog-2.6.24.1 http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.24.1

    Linux 2.6.24.1
    commit cece280a46c9b5c0adb4d5251f42c082a578e1ad
    Author: Jens Axboe
    Date: Fri Feb 8 08:49:14 2008 -0800

    splice: missing user pointer access verification (CVE-2008-0009/10)

    patch 8811930dc74a503415b35c4a79d14fb0b408a361 in mainline.

    vmsplice_to_user() must always check the user pointer and length
    with access_ok() before copying. Likewise, for the slow path of
    copy_from_user_mmap_sem() we need to check that we may read from
    the user region.

    Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
    Cc: Wojciech Purczynski
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
    It looks like the fix for this exploit have been released 3 days ago.
    Nothing to see here, move along.
    1. Re:2.6.24.1 is Not Vulnerable by bconway · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is incorrect. There are three different vulnerabilities here, you're only accounting for one of them.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    2. Re:2.6.24.1 is Not Vulnerable by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      It is still vulnerable to CVE-2008-0600.

    3. Re:2.6.24.1 is Not Vulnerable by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      You guys crack me up with your laughable minimization of any kind of Linux issue, and insane blowhard hysteria about any kind of Windows flaw. This is a big deal - not everyone runs a single Linux machine in their parent's basement. Some organizations have tens of thousands of machines this could impact that they can't just up and patch/reboot.

      It is a big deal. Not as big a deal as a remote exploit, but still pretty damn huge. Smug "see, this is why we run OSS so we can fix it the next day!" statements don't make you all look very good.

    4. Re:2.6.24.1 is Not Vulnerable by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Some organizations have tens of thousands of machines this could impact that they can't just up and patch/reboot.
      Then thank God that they don't use another operating system which requires more regular reboots for security issues (hint: It's a very popular operating system)?

      It is a big deal. Not as big a deal as a remote exploit, but still pretty damn huge. Smug "see, this is why we run OSS so we can fix it the next day!" statements don't make you all look very good.
      This is compared to critical exploits being left for months on end in other operating systems. I think it looks better than the 'competition'.

      No, exploits aren't good. But they're discovered and patched very quickly within the OSS community usually. Thankfully there is no assessments team on whether a exploit is critical enough to warrant someone fixing it - they just go ahead and fix it.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  74. Some things need to be clarified by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    1. As long as I have tested, both exploits #5093 and #5092 DOES NOT affect Feisty
    2. They both DO affect Hardy
    3. They DO NOT affect Dapper

    So it is not fully 2.6 exploit, but there is issues with concrete versions of kernel.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Some things need to be clarified by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1
      You mean, clarified like this from the article summary?

      as long as it's a Linux kernel version 2.6.17 to 2.6.24.1

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  75. But... by snl2587 · · Score: 1

    If you don't trust your users (which you shouldn't), better compile a new kernel without vmsplice.

    I, for one, trust myself and am the sole user of my heavily-password-protected computer. Looks like I'm fine, and it sounds like the easiest solution in a private setting to me.

    1. Re:But... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I, for one, trust myself and am the sole user of my heavily-password-protected computer. Looks like I'm fine, and it sounds like the easiest solution in a private setting to me.
      Indeed, it's only exploitable if someone can get at it. If you don't offer any services whatsoever to the outside world, then you should be okay.

      The problem is, even though you're the sole user, that if other exploits appear they could piggyback this to escalate from, say, access as www-user to access as root. Got any http services on that box for your own convenience, and any of those use PHP? Based on past experiences, this might hose you. Got SSH on there? Again, based on past experiences, this might hose you. Sendmail and some kind of mailscanning? Again, this might hose you.

      It's not just a matter of whether or not you trust your users - it's also a matter of whether or not you trust anyone who attempts to exploit some other service your box offers to not try for root access once they get in. "Please, Mr Blackhat, you've gained access to my box, but please don't elevate that to root!" sounds more than a little naieve, and even a little stupid, but that's exactly what people who leave a whole lot of locally exploitable vulnerabilities on their boxes are saying. By not leaving this kind of thing laying around, you are making it a little bit more difficult for anyone who does manage to gain access to your box to gain full access to it.

      Security is all about healthy paranoia, and a belt AND braces AND duct tape approach can pay dividends.

      Am I personally worried about this? On my work machine and servers I administer, hell yeah - always on, always connected, running various things that in the past have had vulnerabilities - of course I am, I'd be stupid not to be. At home (dial-up, behind a firewall with NAT, nothing much in the way of services, turned off most of the time even though I don't usually bother turning off my WEP-protected wireless access point), not so much - and not just because the only accounts are held by me. I don't broadcast the SSID, I have a couple of neighbors with no security on their broadband-connected wireless access points, and I don't run an awful lot in the way of remote services when I do have my home machines running. If I had broadband at home and a machine that was running anything that was remotely accessible, or if I didn't have a vertiable smorgasbord of less security-conscious neighbours - I'd fix this at home in a heartbeat.
    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A local root exploit means that every remote software exploit for software usually running as another user suddenly becomes a remote root exploit. For this reason, it is worth applying a patch anyway even if you are the only user of your system. There are two levels of security, and the one that is hardest to secure (all running daemons) is the one left protecting you.

    3. Re:But... by Vertigo+Acid · · Score: 1

      Got SSH on there? Again, based on past experiences, this might hose you.
      Are you aware of a remote arbitrary code execution bug in an SSH server that we missed?
      --
      Beta is bad enough to make me go edit settings like this sig that haven't been touched since I joined
    4. Re:But... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of a remote arbitrary code execution bug in an SSH server that we missed?
      Right now? No, of course not. My point is that there have been such beasties in the past, and it's dangerous to assume that there couldn't possibly be such issues in the future, so it's best to ensure that all locally-exploitable problems are patched just in case they do manage to get in. With SSH it's probably less likely than with something like the PHP or mail scanning examples because it has hard-core security experts going over it all the time, but I'd never assume that it couldn't happen.
    5. Re:But... by si0ux · · Score: 1

      I released a basic malware for this vulnerability:
      http://si0ux.blogspot.com/2008/02/sara-malware.html

  76. This is incorrect by bconway · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vmsplice is part of the core kernel, it is not a configuration option. It is used all over the place.

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    1. Re:This is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Somebody give this man some Karma, as this thread is turning South rather quickly with bad information....

    2. Re:This is incorrect by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Then could you explain this output:


      armageddon [1] uname -a
      Linux armageddon 2.6.14.7-k7 #1 PREEMPT Tue Sep 25 11:52:38 PDT 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
      armageddon [2] gcc m00p.c
      armageddon [3] ./a.out
      (snip)
      [-] vmsplice: Function not implemented


      Granted, this is a rather old (custom-compiled) kernel, but still quite functional. It may not be a configuration option, but it's by no means critical to the functioning of a generic kernel (if worse comes to worst, downgrade to 2.6.14.7).

    3. Re:This is incorrect by Vertigo+Acid · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFS?
      2.6.14.7 does not fall within the affected range of 2.6.17 to 2.6.24.1

      --
      Beta is bad enough to make me go edit settings like this sig that haven't been touched since I joined
    4. Re:This is incorrect by novakyu · · Score: 1

      RTFP?

      It was a reply to "Vmsplice is part of the core kernel, it is not a configuration option. It is used all over the place," and I thought I already said that this is an obsolete kernel (and, yes, outside what is claimed to be vulnerable; I never claimed otherwise).

      My point is that whether it's part of the core kernel or not, it should be relatively easy to strip it out without affecting most of functional components.

  77. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by kasperd · · Score: 1

    Try certificate authentication - a bit harder to crack.
    How is that different from using a key?
    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  78. Testing Some of My Boxes by EricJ2190 · · Score: 1

    Linux hack 2.6.14.3-sjg_20051202 #1 Fri Dec 2 20:24:15 PST 2005 i686 GNU/Linux
    "[-] vmsplice: Function not implemented"

    Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.23.12-52.fc7 #1 SMP Tue Dec 18 21:18:02 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
    "[+] root"

    Linux mythtv 2.6.20-16-generic #2 SMP Sun Sep 23 19:50:39 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
    "Segmentation fault (core dumped)"

    Linux hosmer 2.6.22-14-generic #1 SMP Tue Dec 18 08:02:57 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
    "[+] root"

  79. this just in by spaxxor · · Score: 1

    script kiddie found a hole... oh no the authors just committed seppuku

    --
    destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
    1. Re:this just in by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Do you know what a "script kiddie" is, btw? I can promise you a script kiddie did not write the code in that C file.

  80. Making your system secure by houghi · · Score: 1

    Most likely this will not be needed by most here, but those who do not know how to re-compile (the kernel), here a solution:

    1) See that gcc is installed
    2) Download http://www.ping.uio.no/~mortehu/disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c
    3) run `gcc disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c -o disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable`
    4) run `./disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable`

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Making your system secure by braindigitalis · · Score: 1, Informative

      Everyone who is recommending that people should run the 'disable-vmslice-if-exploitable' file should stop doing this!

      The fix does patch the syscall, yes, BUT, in doing so it tests the exploit. From what i have gathered in testing this myself, exploiting the bug actually corrupts the kernel memory map leaving your system in an undefined state, absolutely anything could break, including the possibility of the filesystem driver writing crap to your disk. BEWARE if you use this fix, or take out the test mechanism!

      --
      http://www.inspircd.org - Modular C++ IRC Daemon
  81. Days like today make me glad I run FBSD.... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

    Now I'll go back to waiting for KDE to compile.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  82. Re:How do I get infected? by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

    So in general there is no danger to home users. Except that some program with a buffer overflow can now also be used to get root access.

    Only servers that allow untrusted people to login are in danger. So most people have nothing to worry about. Trust is exploitable, too. Don't give away too much of it.
  83. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, by default, the exploit patch only works if run as NOT root.  To fix this, comment out the lines:

    //        if (!uid || !gid)
    //                die("!@#$", 0);

    Then it will run as root as well, and can be easily placed in your startup scripts.  (Make sure you at least place it before the launch of sshd.)

  84. Five weeks is "forever" in OSS terms. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Five days is a target for something like a kernel exploit (in terms of the fix appearing in mirrors for various distros, and update tools telling you to reboot).

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  85. Remote DVDs for install is like using a icepick... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    ...to clean teeth.

    Netboot, biiiatch! Set up a TFTP, toss in a syslinux config, and point it at a loopback mounted ISO of whatever distro you're installing. I know at least Debian and Fedora/Redhat are capable of this. Solaris too (although its been awhile I remember doing it ages ago).

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  86. OpenVZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ran this on a OpenVZ host, running a vps, and the whole host crashed. Sorry there's no specfics but its down. Love virtualization.

    1. Re:OpenVZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It just caused an oops on mine.

      Apply patch, recompile kernel, install and reboot.

  87. Get slick and build some custom RPMS by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Take the kernel-source. Modify the kernel config file and remove what you know isn't necessary. Create a diff between the new and old and place it in the SOURCES from the rpmbuild environment. Add the patch to the spec file for the kernel in the patches section; also change the release name to match your company to distinguish it from a stock kernel release. rpmbuild the kernel using your new patched config and new spec file and it'll do the rest of the work automagically.

    Now you have a fresh, customized kernel RPM you can use on all of the hardware of the same class. Distribute via internal package mirror (you need one of these too, its a godsend).

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  88. No dice for splice on Ubuntu 7.04 2.6.20-16-server by gravyface · · Score: 1
    cat /boot/config-`uname -r` | grep -i "splice"

    I'm running a server install of Ubuntu 7.04.

    --
    body massage!
  89. actually it's not configurable by dsd · · Score: 1

    This is not an universal problem. It only occurs for those kernels with a specific function compiled in that most installations won't need
    The upstream kernel includes this function on every build and it is not possible to exclude it. There is no such config option. The only way that it won't be present in a standard install of any kernel v2.6.17 and newer is if the admin/packager explicitly jumped in to the source or build system and excluded it.
  90. Crap!! by kilgor3 · · Score: 1

    I better switch back to windows.

  91. No problem on archlinux stock kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesnt works on Archlinux default kernel.

    # testhack
    [...]
    [+] mmap: 0x2abb11e11000 .. 0x2abb11e43000
    Illegal instruction

  92. Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a really really big webhost with shell access in the US with which I just tested the exploit and it worked. Thousands of GB of user data are now at risk....

  93. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Yath · · Score: 1

    That's because during installation, the initial user account is made a member of the admin group. Presumably, you wouldn't give everyone on the machine that kind of access (and yes, you have to do so explicitly).

    Check out /etc/sudoers:

    %admin ALL=(ALL) ALL

    It means that folks in the admin group can do anything using sudo.

    --
    I always mod up spelling trolls.
  94. Accidental moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I'm posting this because I accidentally moderated a comment and I can't find a way to revert it.)

    1. Re:Accidental moderation by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      I moderated your post Funny but then realized it had become overrated, since you posted your demoderating comment as AC. So that's why I've posted this reply.

  95. There are legit reasons. by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
    Dude, for me to run through every option to compile a kernel on my somewhat esoteric hardware at work takes maybe an hour... and most of that time is looking up specs on my hardware.


    You'll not be running anything under Xen or VMWare without extra modules (RHEL 5.1 ships with a Xen upstream kernel now). As for Samba, I hope you don't want ACL support; you'll need a kernel compile for that - Extended Attributes aren't enabled by default. If you need the newest e1000 driver on your integrated NICs, you can add it in yourself or wait for your provider to support it.

    I'm just saying there are legit reasons for hand compiling a kernel. Sorry, I've had this discussion before and it's a bit of a sore point for me. Binary kernels are all well and good for a good majority of cases, but some times you need specific kernel operations or abilities that are not going to be supplied and supported by your upstream provider. Then again, I'm used to being my own upstream provider from running Slackware... maybe I'm just not looking at it from the right perspective.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  96. selinux protection by Sits · · Score: 1

    selinux shipped in a fashion where it only protects services. As such most policies are set to allow a service access to its usual files/sockets and needed syscalls .

    A service that was protected with selinux would probably not "stop" this exploit unless it did very little (a cursory glance suggests it is uses mmap and vmsplice to do perform the deed which could well be things a webserver needs to do). However what might happen is mitigation - a service protected by selinux might struggle in running the exploit in the first place (e.g. by blocking the ability to make an HTTP connection to a server or write to the /tmp directory or call exec on the binary). Assuming you could get it to run under such an selinux protected service you might then struggle to provide a shell or gain root privileges etc.

    However selinux will NOT (at least at present) protect you from yourself. Unless you have a very tough policy it won't stop you compiling code and using a shell as a user logged in over ssh. It also doesn't protect common programs like Firefox - currently it only targets services that are ideally running as their own user.

  97. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    +--------------+
    |    PLEASE    |
    |    DO NOT    |
    |   FEED THE   |
    |    TROLLS    |
    +--------------+
          |  |
        .\|.||/..

  98. The beauty of running a distro kernel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure my Ubuntu systems will automatically get a patch soon so I don't have to bother recompiling a kernel anyway.

  99. or better yet by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    A remote "nobody" Apache exploit that web admins fail to patch because, hey, it only gets you "nobody" access right?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  100. Ran the fix, couple of notes... by brassman · · Score: 2, Informative

    So far it's come up with "function not implemented" on all my Ubuntu Dapper LTS servers, which means most of my machines, but it did come up "Exploit gone!" on my 7.10 X64 and a couple of Debian 4.0 boxes.

    Note that if you compile disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable.c on an X86 box you'll need to compile it again for any X86-64 boxes you have.

    --
    "Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
  101. Fix Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What tires me about these REVELATIONS and DISCUSSIONS is the lack of any real
    risk assesment.

    Note: The bug is already fixed: see,

    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff; \
    h=712a30e63c8066ed84385b12edbfb804f49cbc44

    as "Bastian Blank [Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:47:57 +0000 (16:47 +0200)]", a 1 line fix ...

    --- a/fs/splice.c
    +++ b/fs/splice.c
    @@ -1234,7 +1234,7 @@ static int get_iovec_page_array(const struct iovec __user *iov,
                                    if (unlikely(!len))
                                                    break;
                                    error = -EFAULT;
    - if (unlikely(!base))
    + if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, base, len))
                                                    break;

    which any of you can retrofit to your old(er) kernels ie edit, make, install.

    Now the exploit is complicated, that does not excuse the BUG, Linus and Andrew
    have been working up a storm for months about the balance between innovation
    and quality but as the commercial distributions have been pushing features and
    back on maturity testing this was bound to happen.

    The truth here is that without the machine readable exploit code it would be
    hard to exploit, and anyone can apply such a simple fix without waiting for
    Greg K-H and the stable team.

    FINALLY, I am very suspicious about the release timing of this and the OBSD PRNG
    stories which I suspect a FUD, pure and simple, which is not to say you shouldn't
    fix your systems and press your commercial distributions to _prefer_ quality.

  102. 2.6.25-rc1 just come out now by diego.viola · · Score: 1

    this release fixes the vulnerability.

    1. Re:2.6.25-rc1 just come out now by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      You probably want to get 2.6.24.2 when it shows up instead. rc releases have a lot of freshly-merged stuff that isn't fully stable yet.

      They might spring a 2.6.25 on us but I doubt it. It likely isn't stable enough yet.

  103. Copy on Write by ponraul · · Score: 1

    Are the FreeBSD/Mach developers still incompetent now? http://kerneltrap.org/node/6506

  104. Awesome.. by Junta · · Score: 1

    I logged into some friends' machines (where I don't have root access) and used that program to fix it. I love code that uses an exploit to fix said exploit.

    See, the exploit is a feature, it allows friends to patch your system... yeah..

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  105. Tried it in Fedora (alpha) and Debian (PPC)... by antdude · · Score: 1

    Both failed to work. I tried it on my Debian system with Kernel 2.6.22-K7 and it worked. I used the hotfix in that Debian link and its hole was secured.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Tried it in Fedora (alpha) and Debian (PPC)... by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      If you look at the exploit it makes heavy use of x86 specific inline assembly so it makes sense that it would fail on other platforms. That doesn't mean the other platforms aren't vulnerable, just that you need to have exploit code written for them. Than again, anyone who wants to hack someone running an Alpha should be punished the same as someone who mugs grandma (I kid I kid)

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  106. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.6.23.9-85.fc8 x86_64. Compiled and works as advertised.

  107. Re:Remote DVDs for install is like using a icepick by AJWM · · Score: 1

    I won't argue about how much fun it isn't, but when my NAT'd laptop is VPN'd in to a secure cell and then two or three jumpboxes, options are limited. Yeah, if I have a chance ahead of time and there's another server on the VLAN I can access, I'll just set it up to get the images off the local net and do a kickstart/autoyast install.

    But having the fallback beats having to have somebody drag their ass to the datacenter to swap media.

    --
    -- Alastair
  108. Doenst Really Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    strace....

    mmap(0x100000000000, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = -1 ENOMEM (Cannot allocate memory)
    write(1, "[-] mmap: Cannot allocate memory"..., 33[-] mmap: Cannot allocate memory
    ) = 33

    Didnt work as advertized ...

  109. There is a patch by sponga · · Score: 1

    It is Here

  110. DAMMIT by LodCrappo · · Score: 1

    This was going to be the year of Linux on the Desktop!! Now what do we do??

    --
    -Lod
    1. Re:DAMMIT by brunoacf · · Score: 1

      This was going to be the year of Linux on the Desktop!! Now what do we do??

      And it still is the Desktop Year for Linux. What would be of a Desktop OS whithout a local exploit?
      ;)

  111. Works on Fedora 8 by kramulous · · Score: 1

    I just ran the code on my Fedora 8 machine. Root access.

    --
    .
  112. Re:disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable causes OOPS by Matrim+Cauthon · · Score: 1
    disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable causes kernel oops on Debian Etch 2.6.18-5-686 as well. The exploit ran, and disable-vmsplice-if-exploitable ran, and the exploit stopped running. Several hours later,

    Message from syslogd@kenobi at Mon Feb 11 00:00:27 2008 ...
    kenobi kernel: Oops: 0002 [#1]
    etc. Not fun.
    --
    Sa souvraya niende misain ye.
  113. A useful exploit by fr8_liner · · Score: 1

    This exploit came in handy because I had forgotten my root password. Thanks!

    1. Re:A useful exploit by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      You fail it.

      A forgotten root password can generally be recovered from in one reboot -- or none if you already have a root console open.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    2. Re:A useful exploit by fr8_liner · · Score: 1

      Yoicks! I've been snottied by someone who failed at being a New Age Traveler who now makes a living being rude to people on the phone. Where's the Kleenex?

  114. What's the BFD? by pushf+popf · · Score: 1

    Exactly who has local users on a box that's doing anything important?

    I'd rather have hemorrhoids than local users. At least when they're on your ass you know where they are and what they're doing.

  115. Re:No dice for splice on Ubuntu 7.04 2.6.20-16-ser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, you *do* realize that this has nothing to do with any kernel option containing the word "splice", right? You need to patch the fs/splice.c file under your kernel source tree, then compile a new kernel.

  116. Last resort from a cracker? by gringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what this looks like (given the "old code" comments, and timing of the release of exploit code), I'd say that someone realised that their pet root exploit was being patched in the current kernel (2.6.24.1), and wanted to have a final go at increasing the impact of the exploit before it was snubbed out. I find it hard to believe that, coincidentally, they just happened to post this exploit on milw0rm the day after the change appeared in the kernel.

    Poor form, but I guess it has at least made a few more people aware of the severity of the issue.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  117. Bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you are, you really are! Are you really sure about that ... ???

    1. Re:Bullshit ... by Loibisch · · Score: 1
      Well, if you check the first hit you get linked to UrbanDictionary which says:

      ah shit isn't defined yet, but these are pretty close: So the grandparent might be onto something...
  118. This finally made me upgrade my kernels. by Freebirth+Toad · · Score: 1

    I had been running 2.6.19 for over a year now, waiting for unionfs to make it into mainline so I wouldn't have to manually apply the patch. Turns out that doing so is pretty easy. And then the diff (for the actually exploit patch) on my distro's bug site had the line offsets just a little wrong for my kernel version, so I edited splice.c by hand.

    So now I'm running Linux with a hand-patched kernel and lamenting what a gigantic nerd I've become. :-(

  119. Gentoo Hardened not vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.6.22-hardened-r3

    Neither exploit works. I know, the second is for 2.6.23-24, but it depends on /proc/kallsyms, which the hardened kernel disables.

  120. Centos servers are in the clear by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

    For some reason, (if someone can substantiate this I would appreciate it) I could get neither code to work on a CentOS 4.6 machine setup as a server).
    The exploit fails on my Centos 4.4, 4.6, and 5 servers.

    I don't have KVM installed on any of them (KVM on a production server? are you serious?) so that might help.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
    1. Re:Centos servers are in the clear by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

      The exploit fails on my Centos 4.4, 4.6, and 5 servers.

      Scratch that -- the exploit WORKS on my Centos 5 servers, but fails on 4.4. Sorry for my confusion!

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
  121. The exploit works on SPARC, at least by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    The shellcode is all that's x86 specific; if you want to h4x0rz a different architecture you'll need to write your own shellcode.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  122. The patch. Everybody needs this. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  123. (My) Ubuntu 7.10 is vulnerable by interp · · Score: 1

    > doesn't affect a default install of Ubuntu

    I don't know whether my Ubuntu 7.10 counts as a default install (what's that, anyways?), but it is vulnerable. I don't compile my kernel myself.

  124. To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...I have a question for you. I 100% agree this is an advantage of open-source than closed-source software will never have, ever. You've got me on that one, but my immediate thought was "ok, how much would I like to change my own kernel in production systems? About 0% thank-you-very-much".

    I mean, hacking stuff in and out of a production system kernel; surely that's a process that would require months of intensive regression testing, etc, etc? I mean, I doubt there are people that know the kernel well enough to do such changes for their own systems, but really, what percentage of you guys honestly and confidently can say "Yeah, let me just fix that for us" knowing your job is on the line if your systems crash around you.

    This isn't a troll, this is an honest question.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by brunoacf · · Score: 1

      You are right on your point, but you also have to agree that the open source nature of a software makes it easy to audit and gives it a fast fix process.

    2. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by Chops · · Score: 1

      I've done it before. I had a Dell PE 2950 server with an internal PERC 5 RAID controller that got intermittent data errors with the standard Debian kernel... I poked around on the mailing lists and found that there was a workaround (a one-line kernel change that substantially reduced the aggressiveness with which the driver would load down the RAID controller). I made it, ran a disk benchmark for several days without a hitch, and crossed my fingers and put it into production. Thankfully, the problem never recurred, and a firmware update several months later resolved the problem entirely, so that I could switch back to Debian-provided kernels and get easy security updates and peace of mind again.

      Was I happy about doing it? Absolutely not. I would have much, much preferred to have a kernel running on my production system that I had _not_ edited the source to by hand :-). But the system absolutely needed to go into production, and that was the most straightforward way I could see to make it happen.

      This sort of problem doesn't seem to be unique to Linux systems; I've seen Windows admins go through exactly the same sort of heartache, but their only recourse seems to be to beg the vendor for a fix or to, well, take it and like it. This is the number one thing I like about administrating Linux servers -- no software problem is genuinely unsolvable, and it's up to me to make the determination whether it's worth the investment of time and risk to make the fix. In this case, it was nerve-wracking, but ultimately being able to make this fix saved my ass.

    3. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Hacking the kernel isn't as dicey as it sounds, because creating a custom kernel has been the default "power sysadmin" mode since day one. As a result, there are tools and practices that make it safe, even expected, for production systems. These tools are the same as those used by the big distros to create their default kernels.

      You don't just install a custom kernel on a production system out of the blue. You install a kernel with a proven history that you have made a single iterative change to, tested on a dev server, and that you can easily back out of on the next reboot if necessary.

    4. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patch is extremely easy to apply, it's basically just changing one or two lines of code.
      It isn't rocket science.

    5. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      I can say that I can easily fix, compile and deliver kernel to all kind of distros and even look for faulty code, if necessary. And I am not even C coder. I am just sysadmin and this is mine know-how, collected via long years with Linux.

      However, now I am waiting just for update for my work computer, as it is only Hardy box I got (rest of them are Dapper and Debian Sid, several Gentoos with very old kernel too). It even doesn't have sshd enabled, so I don't care much about this root exploit in local meaning. I trust Linux distribution vendors to deliver fix as fast as I can. Meanwhile, I suggest just turn off ssh on possibly affected computers until patch is rolled in.

      In nutshell, I _do_ worry about all Linux boxes without regular updates or maintenance. However, it is much general issue than Linux, Windows or OS X. Biggest issue with vendors is only RedHat/Fedora decision to ship with sshd with root enabled. It is big no no, sudo is the way to go, I think.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    6. Re:To everyone saying "I ca fix it myself"... by Eil · · Score: 1

      I mean, I doubt there are people that know the kernel well enough to do such changes for their own systems, but really, what percentage of you guys honestly and confidently can say "Yeah, let me just fix that for us" knowing your job is on the line if your systems crash around you.

      When going into system administration for mission-critical systems, you learn three things very quickly:

      1) Back up everything

      2) Test even the smallest change before putting it into production

      3) Design everything to be as redundant as possible

      You can never prevent failure, so a good admin makes sure that the systems continue to operate even with multiple failures.

      What most departments will probably do is wait for the distribution developers to release a new kernel image (probably tomorrow if they haven't already) and assign someone to try it out on a testing machine. If that person is comfortable that the patch doesn't screw anything up (very likely since it's a pretty simple patch), they'll put on the production machines one at a time, starting with the least-critical working their way up to the most critical. It's really all about being cautious, exercising patience, and using common sense. All those people who've rushed to apply the patch have probably already caused more damage to their systems than the entire cracking community using this exploit in the wild.

  125. There are many distros, but most have auto update by sowth · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with the Linux kernel, distribution is up to the individual distros. They are all their own entities. However, most current distros I've seen have some sort of automatic system or system to easily make updates automatic. The only one I can think of which doesn't do that would be Slackware, and I doubt some newbie or "couldn't be bothered to update" user would even touch that distro...

  126. Modular fix with insmod and patch by rfelsburg · · Score: 1

    There is a quick and dirty fix via a module. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432251#c10 The actual patch is listed here: http://home.powertech.no/oystein/ptpatch2008/ -Rob

  127. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, all you need is remote access to a local user account via ssh or something. Many users use weak passwords. Now you won't have to guess the root password.

    He won't anyway. My login has sudo access without a password anyway. My own login is the secure one, if someone gets access to that, he can get to all my important stuff (documents, code, jpgs) anyway. For a single user machine, root is more for a protection against oneself (rm /etc/passwrd - Oh Shit), than for security.

    Now, the httpd user on the other hand...

  128. fast response by b0nafide · · Score: 1

    right on peeps. unfortunate that the exploit existed for so long, but a patch was available for my gentoo distro within four hours of the article being posted on slashdot.

    compare this to the weeks or months for some kind of response from m$ when root access is obtainable, again...

    1. Re:fast response by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unfortunate that the exploit existed for so long, but a patch was available for my gentoo distro within four hours of the article being posted on slashdot.

      It sucks, actually. The bug was clearly simple enough to patch within hours, but that didn't stop hundreds if not thousands of programmers from failing to see it for a long, long period of time. "Many eyes make bugs shallow" my ass. One brilliant eye makes a bug shallow (in this case, the exploit author).

      Clearly there are not enough brilliant eyes looking.

  129. Re:The patch. Everybody needs this. by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

    Because I use openSUSE, I get a new kernel every time they give me one, and the sources to match.

    I would really like to know which of the .config options disables this "vmslice" routine without the use of a patch, which will be overwritten by the new kernel-source-point.update.RPM.

    Which part of "menuconfig" or "xconfig" should I be dropping?

    (not specifically to you, but can't find this answer lower down the tree)

    --

    Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  130. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Durzel · · Score: 1

    It's bigger than that really.

    If you've got a webserver that happens to be running a remotely exploitable bit of code (e.g. CGI script, PHP/Perl application, etc) then you could simply download, compile and run this exploit as you would anything else. Instead of the script kiddies running bots & pingflooders on your system, they will be rooting it and taking it over.

    This problem is compounded further by the fact that on virtual servers customers can usually install whatever they like on their websites, sometimes without even informing the sysadmin. All it would take is one old exploitable copy of awstats, for example.

    The severity of a "local account escalation to root privileges" exploit shouldn't be underestimated.

  131. gentoo 2.6.23 r4 by b0nafide · · Score: 1

    the exploit worked on my gentoo i686 install. i had to change the exploit somewhat to get it to compile, but the result was the same, root access.

    after patching my kernel using this patch and re-compiling my kernel, everything is OK. just like many others have related.

  132. Re:But this can't be real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The real problem here seems to be not Windows, but your ignorance about Windows.

    Ever tried to delete some program's current directory?

    Or renaming it?

    It's not ignorance.

  133. Bug solved by jgaliana · · Score: 1

    Hi, I've adapted a patch for 2.6.24.1 to correct the bug completly by following the instruccions of this mail of the lkml, you can found it here, but now the official kernel 2.6.24.2 solves the bug too. Cheers

  134. Re:But this can't be real! by eitreach · · Score: 1

    Apparently Microsoft are Linux zealots, then. http://www.microsoft.com/canada/midsizebusiness/businessvalue/local/desktopupgrade.mspx Please to stop nonsense generalising kthx.

  135. Compile my kernel! by woolio · · Score: 1
    Not every skilled sysadmin is going to bother compiling their own kernel.

    • Many linux distros can automatically update the stock kernel/modules (debian, fedora, redhat, etc).
    • Most linux distros don't really handle custom kernels well. [When there are kernel updates, the custom kernel updated by the admin manually]. I don't see this as likely to change, since each new kernel often contains more options (the same .config file cannot be used without admin intervention).
    • Many linux admins manage more than one linux system and can't bother to manually compile a kernel for each system.
  136. it's been patched now by dorfsmay · · Score: 1

    There is a new version of the kernel, 2.6.24.2 at kernel.org.

  137. Not exactly...! by SEMW · · Score: 1

    About 90% of copies of Windows out there are pirated, and so won't be auto-updated. 90%? What planet are you on? 90% of all Windows installations are in corporations, usually on volume license agreements, who wouldn't dare to pirate Windows with BSA looming over their shoulders. Something like 90% of the remainder will come with PCs bought at retail, from PC World, Walmart et al, and so will be legal OEM copies. Which leaves maybe around 1% of installations pirated, most of which will still be updated, because Microsoft deliberately doesn't require WGA for security updates!

    ...about 90% belong to clueless users who won't bother to use the automatic update service. Ummm.... "who won't bother to use the ***automatic*** update service"? The whole point of an automatic update service that's on by default (which it has been since SP2) is that clueless users don't have to "bother" to do anything, since it's done for them, automatically. Hence the "automatic" part of "automatic update service"...
    --
    What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  138. Confirmed on i686, but not RISC by mpoer · · Score: 1

    I just compiled and successfully executed the exploit on my Debian Etch i686 laptop. I attempted it on unixclan.no-ip.org's free shell - it runs Debian Etch on a PA-RISC? machine. The exploit would not compile there, nor would it execute. This could be a security feature, or it could be that this does not affect RISC machines.
    Who's willing to test the www.testdrive.hp.com shell servers?

  139. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by pclminion · · Score: 1

    Thanks for explaining what's obvious to anybody a step above the level of "retarded macaque." Although that does imply that you might have given a few kiddiez a lightbulb moment.

  140. Sudo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive me if I am missing something, but wouldn't the average home user mentioned previously have root access via sudo anyway? An intruder would still need only to obtain the user's password to compromise the system. For someone like that, this issue is completely irrelevant.

  141. Re:The patch. Everybody needs this. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    You cannot separately disable the part of the kernel that contains the hole using a config option, you need the latest stable or development kernel, or a patched kernel which you can patch yourself or get from your distributor (the patch just adds a check that was missing, two lines).

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  142. Screenshot of it working by pwnies · · Score: 1

    Works very fast. This is right before I patched my system with the latest kernel ( you can see the ubuntu updater in the background ). http://www.cs.lmu.edu/~j/files/rootExploit.png

  143. Source of Mystery Malware Affecting Linux/Apache? by Spoke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This local root exploit is very likely to be the one used to infect servers reference in previous Slashdot article Mystery Malware Affecting Linux/Apache Web Servers.

    It seems pretty clear that people are using other remote vulnerabilities to gain local user access and then using this local root exploit to install their "malware".

    Get those boxes updated as quickly as possible, folks!

  144. Re:jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c ? RU by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    gonna upload Virtual Machines (drivers) into her firmware? Recompile the matrix? Blow away Sector Zero? Perform Trans-Regression AnalAsys on the Boundary Layers? Plug-in away...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  145. Related to 'dynamic Javascript' hack? by NotQuiteInsane · · Score: 1
    Am I the only person that's wondering if this bug is somehow related to the mass infection of websites that hit the press last month?

    For those with short memories: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/24/1930207&from=rss http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/01/16/mysterious_web_infection_continues/

    In other words, the attack goes something like this:

    • Attacker finds exploitable PHP/Perl script and gains a shell as the Apache user (or the local user if Suexec is enabled)
    • Attacker uploads an exploit based on this to get a root shell
    • Up goes the "dynamic Javascript" Apache module and the hacked execs.
    Plausible or not?
  146. Re:The patch. Everybody needs this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does that patch differ from the following patch (which also, supposedly, fixes the exploit) ?

    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=712a30e63c8066ed84385b12edbfb804f49cbc44

    Which is the right/better fix?

  147. Re:HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why isn't the desktop market penetration in double figure percentages

    To busy apt-penetrating your mums ass

    Windows Server eating into Linux server market share?

    Because windows is a dirty whore that trys to gain favor with a bit of carpet munching

  148. Re:For those that would rather write than read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to shut the fuck up kid. Your other comment about the real world was clueless enough, but now you are giving bad advice that is going to potentially destroy people's data. Do not run that "fix-sploit" on any machine that you actually care about folks. It absolutely will not make your documents "safe" if you do.

  149. Appears to be fixed in Ubuntu as of the 12th. by 1336 · · Score: 1

    As per Synaptic...

    ---
    Commit Log for Tue Feb 12 15:03:30 2008

    Upgraded the following packages:
    linux-headers-2.6.22-14 (2.6.22-14.51) to 2.6.22-14.52
    linux-headers-2.6.22-14-generic (2.6.22-14.51) to 2.6.22-14.52
    linux-image-2.6.22-14-generic (2.6.22-14.51) to 2.6.22-14.52
    linux-libc-dev (2.6.22-14.51) to 2.6.22-14.52
    ---

    linux-source-2.6.22 (2.6.22-14.52) gutsy-security; urgency=low

        [Tim Gardner]

        * splice: fix user pointer access in get_iovec_page_array()
            (CVE-2008-0600)
            - LP: #190587

      -- Tim Gardner Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:01:17 -0700
    ---

    http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2008-0600

  150. Re:The patch. Everybody needs this. by zukinux · · Score: 0

    what does unlikely() do??? Thanks!