bugtraq - Re: COSEINC Linux Advisory #1: Linux Kernel Parent Process Death Signal Vulnerability

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0708152258120.10292@dione>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:05:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Purczynski <cliph@...c.pl>
To: Dan Yefimov <dan@...5.lightwave.net.ru>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: COSEINC Linux Advisory #1: Linux Kernel Parent Process Death
 Signal Vulnerability


> > In this case check_kill_permission() returns -EPERM for unprivileged
> > parent.
> >
> You always talked about setuid root process sending PDEATH_SIG to the
> root child, didn't you? check_kill_permission() checks current->euid and
> current->uid against t->uid and t->suid, where 'current' is the pointer
> to the task_struct of the sender, or, in our case, of the dying setuid
> root process, and 't' is the pointer to the task_struct of the root
> child. If one of those checks succeeds then the entire
> check_kill_permission() succeeds. current->euid is in our case 0, t->uid
> and t->suid are 0 too. So where is the problem?

The problem is that without suid binary execved from parent process you
can not send the signal. ;) With suid binary you can and that makes this
issue a privilege escalation vulnerability.