Slashdot Mirror


Emergency Workaround For Oracle 0-Day

Almost Live writes "Oracle has released an out-of-cycle alert to offer mitigation for a zero-day exploit that's been posted on the Internet. The emergency workaround addresses an unpatched remote buffer overflow that's remotely exploitable without the need for a username and password, and can result in compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the targeted system." Whoever published the vulnerability and matching exploit code did not contact Oracle first.

44 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Whoops, that was my fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sent the email to 0racle. Too much l33tness, sorry.

  2. Haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone else remember Oracle's ad campaign claiming to be "unbreakable"?

  3. nice timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This would seem to be a pretty decent answer to the previous thread (How do geeks get exercise).

    1. Re:nice timing by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmmm. Is it indoors? Check. Lots of sweating? Check. Potential for heart attacks in unfit people? Check. Ok, it meets the criteria.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. They have backpeddled by stimpleton · · Score: 4, Interesting


    "Oracle: can't break it; can't break in"

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  5. Re:I forgot by snl2587 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a surprise! They were exploited by an actual hacker. Whodathunkit?

  6. Re:Unbreakable by dannycarroll · · Score: 5, Informative

    This exploit affects the Weblogic product. Oracle only acquired that a few months ago.

    It's got squat to do with the DB product.

  7. That's why I use... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...pen and paper.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:That's why I use... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can I watch you insert and sort and group 45000 rows of data? That's gotta be a sight to behold.

    2. Re:That's why I use... by ruiner13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      SQL: >select * from pages(start=1,end=1222) order by name asc
      [command executing...]
      [timeout ID-10-T - CPU has entered sleep mode]
      /usr/bin >

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

  8. Worthless by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Funny

    For christ's sake. At least link to the fucking Oracle page.

    If I wanted to read ZDNet, I'd just go to fucking ZDNet.

  9. perhaps if they paid ... by SlashWombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would have thought that an exploit like this would be worth a huge amount of money ... For Oracle, but now for the great pool of unwashed out there.

    It strikes me that if Oracle (and other HUGE software vendors) were to offer substantial cash incentives to find holes as gaping as this one obviously is, that the exploit would have been reported directly to Oracle. By substantial i mean in excess of 100,000 euros. (I would have said US dollars, but that currency isn't worth much any more!)

    1. Re:perhaps if they paid ... by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

      this is an article about an exploit in the BEA Weblogic J2EE Server, which until very recently had nothing to do with Oracle (the company) at all nor Oracle (the DBMS)

      I can't believe all the tards here going off about Oracle's DBMS code base.

    2. Re:perhaps if they paid ... by enosys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that Oracle has tens of thousands of employees points to the fact that Oracle does, in fact, offer a substantial cash incentive for finding bugs like these.

      Do you mean how they pay employees and some of those employees are involved in testing and debugging? That's not the same as paying for vulnerabilities. Do those employees get a bonus for finding vulnerabilities? What about if someone who is not an employee finds a vulnerability?

      The problem is not the money, the problem is the architecture. As long as things like Oracle are written in a massive jumble of C and other low-level, unsafe languages, they will be crawling with bugs. All the money in the world isn't going to get you to a state of zero remotely exploitable flaws.

      True, but if people got paid for reporting vulnerabilities they would be more inclined to report them to Oracle.

    3. Re:perhaps if they paid ... by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what do you think your interpreter is made of? Somewhere, "unsafe" native code has to run.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:perhaps if they paid ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, way to completely miss the point. So, let me explain: if I go and build an application using a "safe" language on top of a VM, I'm building on a codebase that's had millions upon millions of hours of real-world testing. Moreover, that VM, being one single piece of code, can easily be audited for security issues, buffer overflows, etc. None of this can be said of an application I build from scratch on top of an "unsafe" language.

    5. Re:perhaps if they paid ... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if I go and build an application using overhead on top of more overhead, I'm building on a codebase that's had millions upon millions of hours of real-world testing. Moreover, that overhead, being one single piece of code, can easily be audited for security issues, buffer overflows, etc. None of this can be said of an application I build from scratch on top of an "unsafe" language.

      No, but it'll have less overhead. I wonder if they were concerned about performance when they designed this?

      Seriously, though: I'm not saying the application design you described doesn't have its place. In fact it's an excellent way to avoid these sort of problems if you're willing to sacrifice some flexibility and speed. In a high-performance database, though, every little bit is critical. Yes, they must hire top-notch programmers to avoid mistakes like this, but isn't that why the software package costs so much?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  10. It's a fucking Oracle !! Should it have known ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some Oracle That Is !!

  11. what in the world is mod_wl do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i just tried to google mod_wl and the first page
    of the results do not clearly tell me what mod_wl
    even does. i do not know a single person who uses
    it and i work a large ISP.

    this has nothing to do with oracle's database and
    i think slashdot editors really need to stop with
    these silly headlines designed to get me to click
    on stories. grow up! make a profit without deceit!

    frankly, this post about this overflow is such
    a non issue for me it is funny.

    can anyone explain what in the heck mod_wl even does?

    1. Re:what in the world is mod_wl do? by vhogemann · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a module that implements a communication protocol, this protocol enables features that are useful when dealing with clusters, such as load balancing, server affinity (user with an active session always hits the same server), better integration with caches and reverse-proxies, etc...

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
  12. Let me fix that for you by achurch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not that TFA says anything about whether C or C++ are actually involved, but:

    The C/C++ feature that the compiler has no idea of the size of an array claims another example of misuse.

    The lack of array size information is a feature of C/C++, and a well-known one at that. If you don't know how to deal with it, you shouldn't be using the language, much less talking about it.

  13. A misnomer by engun · · Score: 2, Funny

    The hacker thought "Oracle" already knew ;-)

  14. It's for Weblogic, not Oracle Database by Samari711 · · Score: 3, Informative

    not nearly as panic inducing as I first thought, although I'm sure my program management is going to get all bent out of shape about it anyway. Bad news if you Apache with WL though.

    --

    I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

  15. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 5, Informative

    C++ does know the size of arrays. That's why you call call delete [] myArray; without specifying the size of the array.
    What C++ doesn't do is test if the index is out of bounds every time you access the array. It makes it faster but you should remember to put the test in if the index isn't guaranteed to be correct.

  16. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And Princess Diana is a victim of cars lack of a 30 MPH speed cap.

  17. "Did not contact Oracle first." by InlawBiker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Whoever published the vulnerability and matching exploit code did not contact Oracle first."

    It's interesting to me that this is a tag in the OP. I realize it's part of the Hacker's Code of Ethics to report exploits to vendors and I fully agree with it. For the most part it's people pushing software to its limits that find the bugs. BUT - the more business is done on the Internet the more valuable exploits become.

    I am under the belief that somewhere out there, black-hat organizations have some really scary databases of exploits that have never been reported to vendors.

    Reporting to vendors is the right thing to do, but if there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that when money and ethics collide money almost always wins.

    1. Re:"Did not contact Oracle first." by John+Whitley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am under the belief that somewhere out there, black-hat organizations have some really scary databases of exploits that have never been reported to vendors.

      No need for abstract belief; this is near certainty. Even "better", I've seen stuff that would curl your teeth that the vendor apparently knew about but remained quietly unpatched. That was in the toolset of a professional IT security testing company. Their stuff made Metasploit look like a Lego model of a battleship vs. the real thing. It's sobering knowing that tools exist that are the direct realization of the weakest link principle. With really well-thought out and easy to use UI, and backend code just as nice. Click, ownage, click, ownage... /shudder

  18. To disclose or not... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Again, this brings up the whole debate on to disclose or not to disclose.

    I seriously don't think that we would have seen any kind of information from Oracle about trying to mitigate a possible problem if this had simply been sent only to Oracle. As such, we are a little safer in the sense that at least we know of the issue, and as a result can apply the remedies both Oracle provided as well as any other solutions to help protect against this kind of attack.

    Had this not gone public, it would almost definitely be another few months before we had a fix in place from Oracle, and in the mean time had been vulnerable to attack that someone has already found (which means it is likely that many people know of the flaw and may be looking to exploit it).

    While some cases full disclosure may not be the best idea, this case (or any case for that matter where the exploit can be defeated with certain configuration options) it is better that we know of it immediately so we can put our own protections in place and use our own judgment as to what extra actions may need to take place (possibly including taking affected systems off-line or otherwise unavailable). We are all safer now because of this person releasing the exploit into the wild on the public internet, which forced a company to make a statement about that exploit and give immediate advice to protect against it, as opposed to sitting on that exploit, not telling anyone about it, and quietly have a patch released with the normal patch cycle.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  19. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Funny

    or for the love of Pete use an std::vector.

    What's love got to do with it? In fact, if you go for money, you are probably more likely to find a good std::vector. Sorry, old joke. Couldn't resist.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  20. One man's ruffianity... by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One man's unrefined ruffianity is another man's unconscious vernacular.

    Moving to a university research lab after five years in IT at a paper mill in East Bumville, I really had to make a conscious effort to unlearn the conversational vernacular that I had picked up over the last few years.

    Oh, and I believe the correct expression is "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?"

    1. Re:One man's ruffianity... by ozphx · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the correct answer is "No, but I kiss yours."

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  21. Letting the vendor know first can be risky by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Though many experts in the area make it policy to inform the vendor, some vendors respond in wildly inappropriate ways. Some simply ignore it, others will contact law enforcement authorities believing that they are being blackmailed. And yes indeed, some security conscious people have been arrested for trying to do "the right thing."

    It is rare that security flaws like these are announced in this way. I find it more likely that someone attempted to contact Oracle on the matter and the message didn't get to the right eyes or ears and was discarded. Now they are simply claiming to have no knowledge of being prior informed... or maybe just as likely, they were adequately informed and they simply did nothing about it. Microsoft is well known for doing that. There have been exploitable flaws in their OSes for years that have not been patched. Ultimately, I find it more likely that they were informed and for whatever reason did not act on it.

    It's best to report it to the vendor/maintainer first and give them 30 days to fix it, but even then you're probably better off remaining as anonymous as possible or someone may be knocking on your door before you know it.

  22. Fix your grammar by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd comment on the absurdity of your comment, but it's much more fun to point out to trolls that their grammar stinks.

    It's "might not have caught it", although, we all expect trolls to have the linguistic skills of neanderthals.

    --
    I hate printers.
  23. Re:Unbreakable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    very true, it is only the patch from 2 weeks ago for the other 45 vulnerabilities we have to worry about :(. God I hate there quarterly patch cycle, too many important security patches mixed up with other stuff that needs extensive testing before deployment.

  24. Re:Unbreakable by BoRegardless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Come on now. If a bad ass programmer wants either fun or profit he can put in an exploit which can act as a back door. If it isn't caught, he can later decide to use it one way or another.

    How about some serious automated debugging routines, known error and bug checks that are documented and a mandatory human based coding review in a systematic way that tells a how well the coding is being done from the start.

  25. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by lee1026 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not always. Suppose if I do something like this:
    void *ptr = malloc(1000);
    foo(ptr+4);

    Now, in foo, the correct answer to the size of array being passed to it is 996. But the language does not know that.

  26. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by cicatrix1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually a better example of C/C++ knowing the size of the arrays would of been the sizeof() operator.

    You're thinking of the infamous `size've` operator.

    --

    I know more than you drink.
  27. Re:Another victim of C/C++ lack of array safety by MadKeithV · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thread is talking about arrays, and you mention std::list. Right, C++ standard library golden rule #1: always use std::vector, unless you have a really, REALLY, REALLY good reason to use something else. See also one of the other child posts.
    std::vector is the array replacement. It has good random access speed. It is guaranteed to use contiguous memory. If it's not fast enough that's probably because you are allocating memory because you are storing by value and the STL makes a lot of copies of stored values internally in many operations(see other child post) - and that can be solved without defaulting to pointers by using a custom allocator.
    If any of this seems too complex to you, you shouldn't have been bothering with performance-critical C++ yet, and learning more about the language and libraries first. I recommend the book "Efficient C++" by Dov Bulka and David Mayhew as an introduction, and "Effective STL" by Scott Meyers for more on the standard library.

  28. Re:Unbreakable by Markspark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently not TOO much, since Ericsson and Sony Ericsson both do code audits, with senior programmers questioning every single line of code. (Yes, i have friends who work there)

    --
    i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
  29. Re:Unbreakable by MadKeithV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great! I'm applying for a job there, since it seems management has half a clue at least!

  30. Re:It's for Weblogic, PANIC!!!! by Gunstick · · Score: 2, Informative

    you should panic if it's for weblogic. Your oracle databases are not open to the Internet. But weblogic, or especially this buggy plugin in your apache, is!
    That means: potentially free access to your webserver!

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  31. fuck unbreakable. it sucks. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember coming in every other morning in the office to restart our oracle concurrent manager servers because they had mysteriously gone haywire somewhere between their backend and apache interface.

    I remember teams of expensive consultants, weeks without sleep and 24/hr oncall in order to restart crashed IStore servers

    this was when i worked for a certain popular bed company. i also remember our oracle DBA's primary solution being to "reboot all the oracle servers" when something was wrong. his "learn oracle from oracle" book clenched firmly in hand. I remember the database running as a privileged user with full passwordless sudo, as per our oracle reps insistence. i remember files stored at access 777 and no one caring. more power to the 0-day exploits. people need to know this software isnt indestructible just because marketing says it is.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  32. Re:fuck unbreakable. it sucks. by hanshotfirst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your DBA's didn't know what they were doing. Was this an Oracle sales rep or a technical consultant? They were clueless too - there is NO reason to run the Oracle database in that way. I can't speak to the Istore or concurrent manager stuff, but if their lack of knowledge on the core database product was this bad, I can only imagine...

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  33. Re:fuck unbreakable. it sucks. by technomom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone actually drill through the article to the fix?

    The exploit is in BEA WebLogic server, not in the Oracle database. BEA is a web application server company that Oracle acquired about 2 months ago.