|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | VUL-0: CVE-2005-1263: kernel ELF core dump privilege elevation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Novell Products] SUSE Security Incidents | Reporter: | Ludwig Nussel <lnussel> |
| Component: | Incidents | Assignee: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Severity: | Major | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | krahmer, rf, security-team |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | CVE-2005-1263: CVSS v2 Base Score: 7.2 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C) | ||
| Found By: | Other | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Attachments: |
the mail as text
Proposed patch fix that went into 2.6.11.9 for this elf-core-problem-24.patch Proposed patch for 2.4 |
||
|
Description
Ludwig Nussel
2005-05-10 14:23:58 UTC
Created attachment 36776 [details]
the mail as text
Created attachment 36777 [details]
Proposed patch
This should address the problem. Comments?
I think this is a blocker for SP2. unsigned len should be ok, but what about the other function which allows for weird argument counters. It could hit in another place as well. Speaking about create_elf_tables(). Should not be possible to have an undefined arg_end IMHO. CAN-2005-1263 swampid: 1144 public now. Created attachment 36928 [details]
fix that went into 2.6.11.9 for this
Here's the patch I committed to the 2.6.11.9 kernel for this issue.
Patch is in SP2 now. Hubert, will you please merge the patch into all other branches? Thanks! Created attachment 36955 [details]
elf-core-problem-24.patch
elf-core-problem-24.patch is from Redhat ... perhaps Olaf can review This patch may work, but I'd be careful about changing len to signed. Quite the contrary, I would also change the len in elf_core_dump to unsigned the way we do on 2.6. I will commit this to all 2.6 based trees tomorrow. Hopefully we will also have agreement whether the 2.4 patch is fine then ;) Fix has been committed to all 2.6 trees. Now what about the 2.4 trees? There have not been any additional comments. If this stays so until after lunch, I will commit the patch from comment #11 to all trees :) Created attachment 37074 [details] Proposed patch for 2.4 This patch applies to SLES8, and is slightly cleaner than attachment #36955 [details]. I'd like a second pair of eyes though. Chris? question is also whether if we would like those = 0 sets in the 2.6 patch too Olaf, the 2.4 patch looks good to me. Fix is in all trees now (including SLES9 SP1 in case we need the sec update soon). for tracking I don't need to track this one. I'm done with it. If you want to track it, please assign to yourself, not to me ;) Hubert, Marcus did assign the bug to security-team when he reopened it :) Ok, for this one we need an update definitely. Can please someone sum up which other fixes went in meanwhile i.e. what we are releasing beside this fix? marcus is on vacation unfortunally. Judging from vendor-sec discussion 2.6 is not affected by this. I cannot reproduce the PoC on 2.4.21 (sles8) nor 2.4.20 (suse linux 8.2). Adding some printk on 2.4.20 showed that current->mm->arg_end is zero and len positive. Do we have patches that change the way processes are created? (specifically wrt struct mm_struct). Maybe we are lucky and are not vulnerable at all. If this does not affect 2.6, why is this still a blocker against SLES9 SP2? Would you mind adjusting either severity or product, or both? Seems that 2.6 is not affected (needs still the < 0 check though) sinc the mm code assigns clean mm-struct. Good chances our 2.4 kernels do the same. This will result in the subtraction not being less than 0. However full blown fix is needed since missing < 0 check and dangling arg_ pointer. Even if it seems that a trigger is not possible. updates released CVE-2005-1263: CVSS v2 Base Score: 7.2 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C) |