Slashdot Mirror


Critical VMware Vulnerability, Exploit Released

BaCa writes "Core Security has issued an advisory disclosing a vulnerability that could severely impact organizations relying on VMware's desktop virtualization software. It involves directory traversal using VMware's shared folders, and could allow an attacker access to the host system from a guest VM. Core also released an exploit for the vulnerability."

6 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Don't do that, then! by NNKK · · Score: 5, Informative

    VMware's shared folders mechanism has always been a security hole waiting to happen (VMware's own docs pretty much admit that). I don't use them on servers at all, nor on any desktop where security has anything to do with the reason I'm using virtualization.

  2. Re:Why use the shared folder feature? by sammy+baby · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mostly that it doesn't require you to configure folder sharing in the host OS. You enable folder sharing in the VM, and you don't have to add any additional services on the host.

    Of course, if you're using desktop product (like VMWare Server) you can always do host-only networking and limit your shares to the host-only interfaces. But that's a little more work.

  3. serious, even critical flaw, but still not by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    serious, even critical flaw, but still not -that- bad. A short term workaround involves turning off the file sharing feature.

    And really, if you are running vmware for high security and server isolation you would NEVER have that on anyway. Because the existence of a shared folder is implicitly not isolation.

    And the value in vmware is not 'high security' but 'high utilisation'. The ability to run multiple low load systems on one hardware platform, while not having to worry about package dependency, compatibility, or even that they run on the same OS. And the ease at which you can move one virtualized 'server' to another hardware instance, and other server management conviences.

    VMWare as a security mechanism? Its pretty good I suppose. In theory you can approach the same level of security you would have by using separate boxes for the servers. But that's it... you can only approach, you're never going to reach parity, and you certainly aren't going to exceed it.

    So VMWare is a security tradeoff... you trade a bit of security for better cash, space, and cpu utilisation.

    That said, VMware security is quite good. Its a much smaller attack surface than, say, a chroot jail. But there is still an attack surface. If you want the highest possible security, dedicated hardware behind a firewall is, was, and probably always will be the best solution.

    In closing, I'm sure we'll see a proper fix for this in short order.

    1. Re:serious, even critical flaw, but still not by theotherbastard · · Score: 5, Informative

      And really, if you are running vmware for high security and server isolation you would NEVER have that on anyway. Because the existence of a shared folder is implicitly not isolation.

      Actually, if you are running vmware for high security and server isolation you are running it on ESX, or at least VMware Server. Neither of which are vulnerable to this exploit.

      --
      Buttons aren't toys.
  4. Re:Duh? by spud603 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, but if you RTFA you'll see that this vulnerability allows an attacker to access any part of the host file system, not just the shared files. That is bad.

  5. Re:Best to use SSH... by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 5, Informative

    it doesn't traverse the switch as i've tested by making a little loopback cable (rj45 connector with a couple of wires twisted) that is sufficient to fool the nic into a link-up state - but not actually be connected to anything and ssh (etc) still works between host and guests in bridged mode.

    it definitely goes through the host's network stack, which is inefficient but convenient i guess.

    its actually bloody annoying that vmware pays any attention to the hosts nic's link state, as if you're not connected to a switch/wlan, then you have no networking (unless you have a handy loopback cable!) and have to switch to host-only mode.

    i'm getting a bit fed-up of vmware server though, especially that awful web gui in v2 beta, and they still haven't fixed the solaris10 networking issues that they've known about since before it was a "supported" guest os (try using nfs/jumpstart under vmware).

    unfortunately i don't have the hardware to make xen/kvm useful, and virtualbox is a bit "unpolished" to be kind, seen bad reviews of parallels on the mac, so the linux version is probably worse.

    --
    #include <sig.h>