full-disclosure - Re: Kevin Johnson BASE <= 1.3.6 authentication bypass

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: <0276924B06FF74B6B5A66FC5@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:12:32 -0500
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@...allas.edu>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Kevin Johnson BASE <= 1.3.6 authentication
 bypass

--On June 4, 2007 10:35:40 PM +0300 Johnny Storm <johnny653@...il.com> 
wrote:

> Basic Analysis and Security Engine (BASE)
> (http://base.secureideas.net/)
>
>
> One more security product with lame bugs...
>
> Let's look at Kevin's authentication code,
> for example in base_main.php (all pages vulnerable):
>
>  [...]
>  64   // Check role out and redirect if needed -- Kevin
>   65   $roleneeded = 10000;
>   66   $BUser = new BaseUser();
>   67   //if (($Use_Auth_System == 1) && ($BUser->hasRole($roleneeded) ==
> 0))  68   if ($Use_Auth_System == 1)
>  69   {
>   70       if ($BUser->hasRole($roleneeded) == 0)
>  71       {
>   72           header("Location: $BASE_urlpath/index.php");
>  73       }
>  74   }
>  [...]
>
> Where is bug?
> Yes, your browser will redirect after received location header,
> but what if not? ;-)
>
> Test with curl. This is not first authentication issue in BASE,
> putting at risk users which use BASE authentication feature.
> Google shows up many installations protected by this feature.
>
> All BASE versions with authentication are vulnerable.
> ACID is not vulnerable, since it doesn't has such feature.
> BASE+ fork has fixed this issue year ago.
>
> Use your web server authentication or BASE+, which sucks less.
>
I think your "vulnerability report" sucks (to use your word.)
1) You use very unprofessional language
2) You provide no links to either Base or the Base+ fork so the reader can 
check for themselves.
3) You provide no source from the Base+ fork to show how its 
authentication scheme is not vulnerable
4) You personalize your report by using Kevin's name, in an attempt to 
embarrass him
5) You provide no evidence that you have ever contacted the Base project 
and notified them of your "discovery"
6) You don't even mention that an authentication vulnerability was 
**reported and fixed** more than a year ago, nor do you mention how your 
report relates to that vulnerability [1][2][3]
7) You don't explain that the code you posted is not part of the 
authentication system and that the auth code is in base_auth_inc.php.
8) You don't explain what you mean by "what if not?"  The answer is, if 
not, then authentication is required, you do have a role and you have 
already authenticated.

[1] <http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/17354>
[2] <http://www.nessus.org/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=21174>
[3] <http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2006-1505>

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Senior Information Security Analyst
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Content of type "application/pkcs7-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/