bugtraq - Re: Bug in bash <= 4.3 [security feature bypassed]

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]

Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:13:11 +0200
From: Hector Marco <hecmargi@....es>
To: Daryl Tester <dt-bugtraq@...dcraftedcomputers.com.au>,
  bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Bug in bash <= 4.3 [security feature bypassed]


On 05/06/14 12:02, Daryl Tester wrote:
> On 03/06/14 23:46, Hector Marco wrote:
>
>> Recently we discovered a bug in bash. After some time after reporting
>> it to bash developers, it has not been fixed.
>
> ...
>
>> Any comments about this issue are welcomed.
>>
>> Details at:
>> http://hmarco.org/bugs/bash_4.3-setuid-bug.html
>
> I'm only going by the patch presented above, so ...
>
> 1.  The program should be calling setgid() before setuid() (which is
> another common class of security mistake).
> 2.  Why is exit() returning values greater than 255?  It's not capable
> of doing that under (most) Unix environments.
>


a) I tried to patch by doing minimal changes to bash source code. 
Originally,
     the bash call first setuid() and later setgid(). And as you point 
this is not the
     best option. So, this code has actually 2 mistakes. I changed the 
patch code
     order calls, thanks, but anyway the patch achieve their goal, 
"avoid the bash
     to be a valid target shell in an attack".


b) I can imagine why you spent time writing about the patch and not 
about the
     important point here which is the bug.