I missed one thing earlier. This is indeed a "root escalation requires root" bug. You must be root to create the unit file. People can create crazy user names all day. This *only* happens when a custom service script is created using the crazy user name as the owner of the process as described in a Unit file. It is as close to a non-issue as you can get. People are trying to make it sound like commands you run from BASH will execute as the root user. This is NOT the case.
Your version of useradd behaves the same as every other version of useradd that is the same exact version of the useradd you are using? Wow, you are a genius for being able to advance that little tautology!
It isn't an *exploit*, and it was never going to happen in the real world, but has been fixed anyway. You can keep playing chicken little if you want, but the sky was never falling.
You don't understand the bug at all do you. You have to be root to get the process to run as root. You also have to create a user that doesn't exist and an invalid username. Off you go now...
It does actually. What you just described is that Linux keeps getting better, and even Microsoft realized that they have no chance of beating it anywhere but in the homes of the clueless.
It isn't a privilege escalation exploit dumbfuck. You need to already have root access to create the malformed unit file. Are you really so stupid, or are you hoping to misinform others who aren't paying attention?
Funny. Many of the people here are criticizing him for checking, while others for not. It is almost like it doesn't matter what *they* do, someone will decide it was him and start blaming.
Yes, because nobody here seems to be smart enough to understand all of this AFTER it has been explained to them, but HE should know everything about everything. Newsflash: 99.9% of people didn't know or care about how this works until it became an opportunity to criticize a guy they have an irrational hatred for because he didn't know it either.
Yes, because your useradd is guaranteed to be the same as mine. You are so fucking stupid you think every users is the same. Holy shit. You would only have had to have actually read the bug to see that they specifically talk about when a particular patch changes the behaviour. You might have just won "most incompetent post".
I didn't waste my time reading your ridiculous bullshit. The URL (NOT URI) is invalid, Netflix is broken, and you are too fucking stupid to use computers. Plonk.
No, and just as SysV Init is a collection of programs, so to is systemd. People saying it doesn't follow the philosophy are either mistakenly or intentionally mischaracterizing it as a single program. If you prefer, think of linux-tools. That is the analogy. Would you say OMFG... linux-tools violates the philosophy because it doesn't do just one thing!? Of course not.
Did you try adduser? Ubuntu is not known for an emphasis on security for the record, but if you read the bug you would already know that adduser and useradd disagree on the acceptability of said username. The reason it isn't just a systemd danger is that other people write software that can also fall victim to the same bug. Again, systemd does the safe and sane thing here. You can read my other responses in this thread and the links, as well as the bug link from the summary to learn more. And bear in mind this was never an attack vector, as one already needs root access to create the unit file that "exploits" the bug. (The classic "I can hack root... I just need root access to do it" scenario)
I'll just pick the obvious one: systemd accepts valid usernames. If you look at the useradd (8) man page you will see that it is distribution dependent what constitutes a valid username. In general they insist on an underscore or letter as the first character. It is dangerous to allow them to start with digits as we have seen. Most distributions follow this safe rule. Complaining that system does proper input validation is the real gaffe in your rant that is icing on the cake of your lack of understanding of both Linux usernames and secure programming in general though. Your apology is accepted.
Yes. The same is true of the kernel. You would think it would just display shit and do that well, but no, it handles disk drives, users, virtualization... The list goes on and on. Talk about a violation of *nix principles! You DO know that systemd isn't a single program, right? Of course you don't.
No. A remote exploit can be found in a lot of software. It would be horrendous if it was obvious or they refused to fix it, but neither of those things are true.
Slashdot Mirror
I missed one thing earlier. This is indeed a "root escalation requires root" bug. You must be root to create the unit file. People can create crazy user names all day. This *only* happens when a custom service script is created using the crazy user name as the owner of the process as described in a Unit file. It is as close to a non-issue as you can get. People are trying to make it sound like commands you run from BASH will execute as the root user. This is NOT the case.
DId he apologize? To whom? Did you read the issue linked to in the summary? Now *I* am genuinely curious.
We get it. You are an incompetent Douchebag who can't admit he is wrong. Off you go now little troll turd ...
Apotheca is Latin. It may be Greek too, but scientists don't use words because they are Greek; they use Latin.
Your version of useradd behaves the same as every other version of useradd that is the same exact version of the useradd you are using? Wow, you are a genius for being able to advance that little tautology!
It isn't an *exploit*, and it was never going to happen in the real world, but has been fixed anyway. You can keep playing chicken little if you want, but the sky was never falling.
You can read the bug to see that you are all upset because it does what you are saying it should do.
You don't understand the bug at all do you. You have to be root to get the process to run as root. You also have to create a user that doesn't exist and an invalid username. Off you go now ...
It does actually. What you just described is that Linux keeps getting better, and even Microsoft realized that they have no chance of beating it anywhere but in the homes of the clueless.
It isn't a privilege escalation exploit dumbfuck. You need to already have root access to create the malformed unit file. Are you really so stupid, or are you hoping to misinform others who aren't paying attention?
It isn't a root exploit.
Funny. Many of the people here are criticizing him for checking, while others for not. It is almost like it doesn't matter what *they* do, someone will decide it was him and start blaming.
I am sure, now that you have learned more as seen below, you will be apologizing to me any time now, right?
Yes, because nobody here seems to be smart enough to understand all of this AFTER it has been explained to them, but HE should know everything about everything. Newsflash: 99.9% of people didn't know or care about how this works until it became an opportunity to criticize a guy they have an irrational hatred for because he didn't know it either.
Yes, because your useradd is guaranteed to be the same as mine. You are so fucking stupid you think every users is the same. Holy shit. You would only have had to have actually read the bug to see that they specifically talk about when a particular patch changes the behaviour. You might have just won "most incompetent post".
I didn't waste my time reading your ridiculous bullshit. The URL (NOT URI) is invalid, Netflix is broken, and you are too fucking stupid to use computers. Plonk.
You didn't even read the bug did you. If you did you would realize how stupid you sound.
No, and just as SysV Init is a collection of programs, so to is systemd. People saying it doesn't follow the philosophy are either mistakenly or intentionally mischaracterizing it as a single program. If you prefer, think of linux-tools. That is the analogy. Would you say OMFG ... linux-tools violates the philosophy because it doesn't do just one thing!? Of course not.
Did you try adduser? Ubuntu is not known for an emphasis on security for the record, but if you read the bug you would already know that adduser and useradd disagree on the acceptability of said username. The reason it isn't just a systemd danger is that other people write software that can also fall victim to the same bug. Again, systemd does the safe and sane thing here. You can read my other responses in this thread and the links, as well as the bug link from the summary to learn more. And bear in mind this was never an attack vector, as one already needs root access to create the unit file that "exploits" the bug. (The classic "I can hack root ... I just need root access to do it" scenario)
You spelled fact wrong
I'll just pick the obvious one: systemd accepts valid usernames. If you look at the useradd (8) man page you will see that it is distribution dependent what constitutes a valid username. In general they insist on an underscore or letter as the first character. It is dangerous to allow them to start with digits as we have seen. Most distributions follow this safe rule. Complaining that system does proper input validation is the real gaffe in your rant that is icing on the cake of your lack of understanding of both Linux usernames and secure programming in general though. Your apology is accepted.
Yes. The same is true of the kernel. You would think it would just display shit and do that well, but no, it handles disk drives, users, virtualization ... The list goes on and on. Talk about a violation of *nix principles! You DO know that systemd isn't a single program, right? Of course you don't.
What the FUCK are you talking about? Never mind, you made it pretty clear you don't know.
No. A remote exploit can be found in a lot of software. It would be horrendous if it was obvious or they refused to fix it, but neither of those things are true.
No, not like that one at all. Are you stupid? In that one the severity of the bug was minimal, but it also got fixed anyway. Care to try again?