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.

12 of 586 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  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: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.

  6. 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
  7. 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."
  8. 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.'

  9. 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.

  10. 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?