Bug 65373 (CVE-2005-0179) - VUL-0: CVE-2005-0179: kernel: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bypass and (2.6) unprivileged user DoS
Summary: VUL-0: CVE-2005-0179: kernel: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bypass and (2.6) unprivileged us...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: CVE-2005-0179
Product: SUSE Security Incidents
Classification: Novell Products
Component: Incidents (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All Linux
: P3 - Medium : Normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Marcus Meissner
QA Contact: Security Team bot
URL:
Whiteboard: CVE-2005-0179: CVSS v2 Base Score: 2....
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-02-01 17:41 UTC by Marcus Meissner
Modified: 2021-11-04 16:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Found By: Other
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments
rlimit-memlock.patch (1.16 KB, patch)
2005-02-01 17:45 UTC, Marcus Meissner
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcus Meissner 2005-02-01 17:41:55 UTC
20050107 RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bypass and (2.6) unprivileged user DoS                   
        This was reported by grsecurity to full-disclosure                       
                                                                                 
+http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030660.html      
                                                                                 
        Fixed by -ac8 according to Alan "impact: DoS"                            
                                                 
 
CAN-2005-0179
Comment 1 Marcus Meissner 2005-02-01 17:41:55 UTC
<!-- SBZ_reproduce  -->
n/a
Comment 2 Marcus Meissner 2005-02-01 17:45:22 UTC
Created attachment 28092 [details]
rlimit-memlock.patch

extracted from 2.6.10-ac6-ac7 interdiff
Comment 3 Marcus Meissner 2005-02-01 17:46:01 UTC
not sure if the lone ret in the third hunk belongs there. 
Comment 4 Marcus Meissner 2005-02-22 14:29:10 UTC
andrea, or andi ... can you comment? 
 
I dont seem to find the correct patch in bitkeeper, I guess the code has  
been restructured in mainline. 
Comment 5 Andreas Kleen 2005-02-22 14:51:24 UTC
I'm not sure it's worth bothering with this one. There are a zillion
ways to pin basically arbitrary amounts of kernel memory. Fixing them
all is basically impossible. 
Comment 6 Andrea Arcangeli 2005-02-22 15:14:32 UTC
Yes, the severity of the mlock DoS with stack growsdown is low. But we should 
at least queue the bugfix for future updates. 
 
The fix they posted is apparently correct, but it probably needs porting 
against our tree. 
 
I didn't evaluate the urandom thing, the driver ioctl seem mostly an issue for 
root willing to screwup himself. 
Comment 7 Andrea Arcangeli 2005-02-22 15:20:59 UTC
the urandom thingy is a root sysctl and the scsi ioctl is root too. 
 
does the guy know what security is all about? perhaps next time he will post 
that linux securiy is weak because he can destroy the system with rm -r /. 
Perhaps the fact he's still seeking founding explains why those 
non-security-related bugs are being posted as security related. 
 
The rlimit mlock exploit is security related but a minor one. 
Comment 8 Marcus Meissner 2005-02-22 15:23:44 UTC
the guys is pushing grsecurity his own ultra hardened kernel ... and lacks 
social competence ;) 
 
 
Comment 9 Andrea Arcangeli 2005-02-22 15:29:02 UTC
well, my point is that if he considers a root-only sysctl "ultra hardening" he 
should remove the unlink syscall as well ;) 
 
that's only a minor bugfix to send to mainline without security strings 
attached IMHO, he can't do anything wrong unless he's root, and if he's root he 
can as well cp /dev/zero /dev/mem. I mean it's ridiculous when he says "I 
discovered 4 exploitable vulnerabilities in a matter of 15 minutes". He didn't 
specify "but exploitable only as root" 
Comment 10 Marcus Meissner 2005-03-09 12:35:27 UTC
andrea, i would like to include the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bypass fix in the upcoming 
2.6 line updates... 
 
can you port the fix against our trees (SP1 branch and 9.2) ? 
 
thanks! 
Comment 11 Andrea Arcangeli 2005-03-09 20:32:55 UTC
SP1/SP2/GA/HEAD aren't vulnerable. 
 
Only SL92 branch is vulnerable AFIK. 
Comment 12 Andrea Arcangeli 2005-03-11 23:05:13 UTC
Patch is now applied to SL92, all other trees should not need it (the same as   
bug #65370). 
Comment 13 Marcus Meissner 2005-03-14 08:28:49 UTC
thanks! 
Comment 14 Marcus Meissner 2005-03-24 17:23:14 UTC
updates released 
Comment 15 Thomas Biege 2009-10-13 21:02:44 UTC
CVE-2005-0179: CVSS v2 Base Score: 2.1 (AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P)