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.

41 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 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 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.
    3. 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).

    4. 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...
    5. 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
  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.
  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 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
    2. 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. Thank God by Zoxed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Phew, lucky I run MS Windows then !!

    1. 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.

    2. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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...

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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

  18. 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."
  19. 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.'

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

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

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

  23. 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?
  24. 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?
  25. 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.
  26. The patch. Everybody needs this. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  27. 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();