Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel Exploit Busily Rooting 64-Bit Machines
An anonymous reader writes "Running 64-bit Linux? Haven't updated yet? You're probably being rooted as I type this. CVE-2010-3081, this week's second high-profile local root exploit in the Linux kernel, is compromising machines left and right. Almost all 64-bit machines are affected, and 'Ac1db1tch3z' (classy) published code to let any local user get a root shell. Ac1db1tch3z's exploit is more malicious than usual because it leaves a backdoor behind for itself to exploit later even if the hole is patched. Luckily, there's a tool you can run to see if you've already been exploited, courtesy of security company Ksplice, which beat most of the Linux vendors with a 'rebootless' version of the patch."
Why does the summary and articles read like a paid advertisement for Ksplice?
Yes, there's an available rights escalation vulnerability in recent Linux Kernels that's best patched by updating your system with the latest updates. The breathless nature of the fine summary betrays an eagerness to get Linux admins to click the links before they've done so. I'd rather not. Social engineering is such a powerful exploit mechanism after all.
The Windows geeks obviously will want to paint this as a native Linux vulnerability that they don't have - and it is marginally true. That's fine - but it's an escalation bug, not a remote root, and they've several dozen remote root bugs to close before they point fingers.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is a local exploit so I'm not horribly concerned and here is why.
You should always treat your systems as if an exploit already exists for both remote and local connections.
The systems I maintain are part of a bit of an elaborate network. There is a huge investment in controlling incoming and outgoing traffic as well as managing who actually has access to systems. While a local exploit a big deal it's not like there are a great number of places for users to inject this code. If someone could compromise an input vector and piggyback the exploit that still wouldn't get them very far. In fact, without knowing key details regarding the network infrastructure they would simply nab a host that could not reach the outside world.
With that said we do have a bit of reliance on lbs, traffic inspection, firewalls and a good bit of monitoring equipment. However, there is a solid investment in specific purpose network and security protocols to accomplish these goals. In a bit of a cheaper shop I'm wondering what others do to maintain security and get some of the same tools. (I'm being very vague about our setup intentionally, but there have to be some decent foss network tools as well).
If hostile users have local access, you're pretty much boned anyway.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Am I the only person who says "hell no" to running that "diagnosis" program? After looking through the code real quick, I have no interest whatsoever in running a program that performs the very exploit I'm supposed to be scared of, cuz I don't have time to make sure ksplite neutralized it properly. Also, since it's only a local exploit, I'm not concerned enough about it to run a diagnosis tool that implements it.
And good lord god almighty, what 12 year old wrote this code, that they think having function names like put_your_hands_up_hooker() makes them cool?
There is something to be said though about going to a 64bit operating system. The fact that there are a little more than twice as many general purpose registers in the CPU available means that code can be compiled to not need to do memory fetches anywhere near as often which means that the code will run faster. the extra addressing space has always been a red herring argument (e.g. i only need it if i have more than 4gb of ram).
C'mon now. As others have pointed out, and has been mentioned earlier on /., this is a local root exploit. It's bad, it affects a lot of users (in theory), but to write this is to simply spread fear for most of those using Linux.
Why? Because the systems that inexperienced users run also happen to be those with a few, generally trusted users. Think netbooks. Sure, all local root exploits are bad and should be patched asap. But that doesn't mean "you're probably being rooted as I type this". It means that a remote attacker needs user-level privileges (say, with a browser or plugin vulnerability) first. Since Ubuntu and probably other major distros have already patched this, and the default settings for updates on these systems is to check fairly frequently, most end users will have the patched kernel quickly.
That leaves multi-user systems. The admins of these servers certainly benefit from finding out about the vulnerability asap, and they did (including through previous stories here). By now, though, most admins should have something in place if they don't have full trust in their users. If they don't, they should definitely be looking at whether this was exploited.
The bottom line is that there are many local root exploits which come out every year. This is the latest one, with a patch already available. Responsible admins of multi-user systems are used to dealing with this, and home users are almost certainly going to be patched before it causes any issues. For them, the latest Flash vulnerability is more worrisome. Even the extremely rare remote exploit of a service isn't usually an issue, since most modern distros don't start much of anything by default (including ssh, IIRC).
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Microsoft already felt the pain, because the Xbox 360 hypervisor got owned by the same exact hole . It would almost be the same instruction-by-instruction identical bug were it not for the fact that the 360 is a PowerPC system and this is an x86_64 hole. Yes, they, too, used a 32-bit compare to check the system call humber, then indexed into the array using the full 64 bits, exactly the same bug that caused this Linux hole.
quiet, children.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Our UNIX admin has the philosophy that anyone with local access can get root if they want it bad enough. Security isn't done by presuming you've made that impossible. Rather security is done by making sure you don't give access to just anyone, and to monitoring what people do. Local escalation exploits are things to be fixed, since they can always make a remote exploit worse (someone exploits something remotely, gets unprivileged access, exploits the local exploit to get root) they aren't a critical threat usually.
However I will say you don't make things much better when you start with name calling with regards to Windows and the people that run it. That smacks of being the sort of asshole that knows little about the other platform that you are painting them to be. That you have a preferred platform is great. One would hope it is based on good reasons. However name calling on another platform indicates it is more likely based on zealotry than anything else.
Guys, come look, its Abraham!
Just a quick google search: http://secunia.com/advisories/41122
There are quite a few listed on secunia, it's a really good site. Currently lists 10 unpacked vulnerabilities in Windows Vista, none for Linux surprisingly, it must be a conspiracy against Microsoft and those damn Linux fanboys.
It's a local user privilege escalation exploit. Every OS has those. What it means is that if someone can get in to your computer as a local user (or gain control of a process that runs as a local user, such as the web server process), then they can gain root access to your system.
However, the first step - getting in as a local user - is really really hard on most servers. Unless you're handing out local user accounts to people left and right (like a university cluster or something), it's going to be nearly impossible for Joe Random Hacker to get control of a local user account.
You know how it's generally held to be true that if you have physical access to a running machine, the only thing stopping you from getting root access to it is time? Well, the next step up (in terms of difficulty) is not having physical access, but having access to a local user account.
The exploits that work on Windows, on the other hand, are ones where someone who doesn't even have local user privileges - who's just looking at your website - can get root access, like the one Slashdot posted here.
I have 64 bit hardware but I run x86 based distros. 64 bit is only good for the extra ram maybe to the desktop user. And there still is a lot of issues getting older programs to run on a 64 bit distro.
The x86_64 architecture has more registers than i386 and can do some operations 64 bits at a time rather than 32 bits. This means that programs compiled to run on a 64 bit architecture are often significantly faster than those compiled to run on 32 bit architectures.
I think an average figure is 20% faster or so on the same hardware -- you get this simply by installing a 64 bit distribution and using 64 bit binaries. Your system can probably still run 32 bit binaries (if it has the right libraries) but they won't be faster.
The advantages go beyond a larger address space.
it's local, ok? Not a remote exploit.
Ironically, a local exploit is somewhat more serious for Unix systems, because Unix hosters are much more likely to give shell access to their customers (effectively giving "local" access), while the most a typical Windows hoster will do is let you connect with IIS admin console.
As a long time user I get the option to disable advertising. I don't. I even whitelist Slashdot in Adblock because I support the site and the banner ads are rarely obnoxious.
These poorly disguised articles-as-ads are quite annoying though. Just make KSplice pay for a banner like everyone else.
That exploit requires user interaction. Even then it doesn't provide administrator access. Try again.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
Did you skip the end of the video where the demonstrator opens up a command prompt on the remote machine running as the NT Network Authority? That's as close to "remote root" as makes no difference.
Uhh.. dude. Seriously. Did you even think about this?
Your web browser runs as a local user. If there is a flaw in your web browser (and all of them have had plenty), then they can use that flaw, just by looking at a web site, to gain root access to your machine using this vulnerability.
So yes. This *IS* the kind of flaw that just looking at someones web site can exploit, if they can also attack your web browser (which is typically pretty easy to do as most people aren't always up to date).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Is anything bad going to happen to you if you compile and run that C code? As far as I can tell, no.
You are very likely correct in thinking that adding yet another anonymous recommendation on the internet will make more people run the code. However, this is Slashdot, where the users are slightly more security aware than on an average internet site.
You see, If I were to attack all those nifty linux boxen out there, what would be a better attack vector than advertising your exploit on slashdot, which is known to accept almost anything on the front page, and yet is very likely to contain the biggest active linux user community on the nets? By looking at the code it seems obvious that the tool contains enough binary code to contain an exploit or three. If it is never used in a malicious way, it is somewhat difficult to say. So, outside a security lab setting, it is hard to tell if the provided code is not the exploit itself. Definitely "You are probably getting hacked right now! Check for viruses for free!" has been one of the more common attack vector against Windows users.
Whatever the case, I would not recommend running code that looks like this:
static char dis4blens4sel1nuxhayettgdr64545[] and
static int wtfyourunhere_heee(char *out_release, char* out_version)
What part of Web *BROWSER* did you not understand?
I said nothing about a server. Even so, you don't need a shell to execute arbitrary code. You just need to be able overflow a buffer or some other kind of attack. A shell is meaningless.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
no, you.
>Point out a current remote root exploit in Windows. To the best of my knowledge, there are none.
You're kidding right? They're enumerated the second Tuesday of each month. We even have a word for it now: "Patch Tuesday". It's an IT anti-holiday. How do you not know about this?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Run the tool in TFA ./diagnose-2010-3081
Diagnostic tool for public CVE-2010-3081 exploit -- Ksplice, Inc.
(see http://www.ksplice.com/uptrack/cve-2010-3081)
$$$ Kernel release: 2.6.32-24-generic
!!! Not a RHEL kernel, will skip LSM method
$$$ Backdoor in LSM (1/3): not available.
$$$ Backdoor in timer_list_fops (2/3): checking...not present.
$$$ Backdoor in IDT (3/3): checking...not present.
If you're suspicious of the binary, download the source, examine it to satisfy yourself that it's not malicious, and compile it. It's not hard to figure out if you're affected - even a dummy like me can do it!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The situation appears to be exactly as described by Ksplice.
CVE-2010-3081 has been discussed on RedHat forums and elsewhere.
The Ac1db1tch3z exploit published on the full disclosure list http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Sep/268
does indeed appear to contain a backdoor (0p3n1ng th3 m4giq p0rt4l).
From the comments, the vulnerability was found in 2008 and the exploit has been used by the author for some time, and may have been circulating in the underground. When the vulnerability was found and disclosed by Ben Hawkes, the exploit was published to a wider audience.
A number of sysadmins may well have run the exploit on their systems to prove to themselves that this was a real threat. In doing so they may unknowingly have left a backdoor.
More commonly, proof-of-concept exploits posted on full-disclosure lists are crafted by security researchers, do not contain backdoors, and are relatively easy to read. In this case, the disclosed exploit is crafted by a hacker, may well contain a backdoor, and is written with leetspeak runtime messages and obfuscated code.
I admit I do not fully understand the code in the exploit or in the detection tool, or indeed the nature of the backdoor. However, on a Fedora 9 system, running the detector says there is no backdoor. After the exploit is run, the detector says there is a backdoor, so
the exploit must have changed the state of the system in some way. The detector looks for 3 separate backdoors; the one on my
test system disappears after reboot. As I thought the fix was to update the kernel to a patched version, which requires a reboot, I'm not sure how the backdoor could survive. I do not see how having the backdoor is riskier than having an unpatched system.
I can say, though, that the vulnerability exists in stock kernels 2.6.25 - 2.6.36, and was back-ported by RedHat into 2.6.18 used /proc.
in RHEL 5 (hence CENTOS 5). As stated by others, an unprivileged user account is required in order to exploit the vulnerability, which exists only on 64-bit x86 systems which also can run 32-bit code. One published mitigation step, which does not require a reboot, is to disable 32-bit compatibility mode by writing into
post your ip address and root password and I'll check it for you.
127.0.0.1
hunter2
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
``assholes that don't understand shit about security and somehow think that this means that GNU/Linux is insecure''
It _is_ insecure. There are plenty of vulnerabilities being found and reported, and there are several things that many distributions could do to improve security. To name a few examples, many distros ship with stack smashing protection and address space layout randomization disabled, and allow pages to be writable and executable by default. Also, usually, many operations are reserved to the root user, and the root user can do everything which means that more programs than necessary run as root, and root has more power than necessary. These are not the properties of secure systems; it's not even close to state of the art security.
``as bad as their shitty system''
I am not sure that such derogatory language makes the world a better place. I'm not even sure comparing the security of Linux with that of Windows is useful. If you do compare them, you will find that, at the very least, Microsoft has improved the security picture on Windows a great deal. In some cases, such as running with reduced privileges by default and only elevating privileges for programs that need it, they have merely caught up with Linux systems. But since Windows Vista, Windows ships with address space layout randomization and non-executable pages (Microsoft calls it DEP) enabled for many libraries and executables. Newer versions of Internet Explorer (certainly 8, but also newer versions of 7 if I'm not mistaken) are among those applications, and also include a "protected mode" where most of the program can't do very much at all, and all potentially harmful operations are concentrated in a small, trusted kernel running in a separate process. These are the sort of security measures taken by a vendor who takes security seriously. On the *nix side, you will find this kind of stuff in OpenBSD and a few specialty hardened Linux distros, and that's about it. Ubuntu has AppArmor, but hardly uses it.
If you look at vulnerabilities, like the privilege escalation vulnerability in the story, I would not be surprised to find that more of these are being found and reported in Linux than in Windows these days. What that means about the relative security of Linux and Windows, I don't know. But clearly, serious security flaws are being found in Linux. As far as I am concerned, Linux's security track record is far from stellar, and there certainly isn't a strong security culture that will make this better in the near future. Easily applied security measures (see first part of my post) are being left on the table, and we have far too much code running in all-powerful kernel mode for me to be comfortable with (just one data point: I have over 100 MB of kernel modules on my system, and on the order of tens of megabytes in the running kernel image).
Considering all the above, I would certainly refrain from calling names or making derogatory remarks against users of non-Linux systems. I don't profess to know which system is the most secure, all things considered, but I'm a firm believer in not needlessly stepping on people's toes.
Kind regards,
Your friendly neighborhood Linux guy
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The /. editors fall hook, line, and sinker for these advertisements for Ksplice submitted by an 'anonymous reader' every 6-8 weeks. Get used to them.
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
You mean, like the iphone and the pdf exploit that allowed any website to root it?
No, Apple devices do not have security vulnerabilities to exploit. They do sometimes have remote-user-friendly jailbreaks, but that's an entirely different thing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Going to 64 bit means your instructions will be 64 bit, which means doubling the cache mem usuage.
Not true. x86 and x86_64 both use a variable-length instruction encoding. You actually get slightly better instruction density with x86_64, because a number of instructions that used to only work with eax now work with any target register, so for a couple of bits extra in the longer version of the instruction you avoid two register-to-register moves.
Pointers are 64-bit, but you'd need your program to consist entirely of pointers for this to double cache usage. In practice, you do see a small increase in data-cache usage, but it's offset by other things.
From performance point of view, if you don't really need 64 bits ( probably most of users will be fine with 4GB ram in next years) stay at 32 bits.
If we were talking about PowerPC or SPARC, you'd be (basically) correct. x86-64, however, is not just x86 with 64-bit pointers. It also gives you these other advantages:
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As a home user, I'm always a bit aghast when people determine that preventing access to root is my biggest priority.
If they've got access to my browser, this means that they now have access to all of my documentation, and have the ability to run programs (e.g. through my .bin and .profile files) including full access to the internet.
I mean, they've got my data, they've got the power to run applications and they've got full internet access. I'm personally not that worried about root access - if they break through the browser barrier I'm basically f*cked already.
(yes, yes, I know, SELinux and such could protect me if I configure them correctly. Not even I can easily do that however, and nobody that I know would go that far).