full-disclosure - Re: McAfee Virus Scan for Linux and Unix v5.10.0 Local Buffer Overflow

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <46C32F7E.7020909@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:53:18 +0200
From: monikerd <monikerd@...il.com>
To: joey.mengele@...hmail.com
Cc: sebastian@...fgarten.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
	bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: McAfee Virus Scan for Linux and Unix v5.10.0
 Local Buffer Overflow

Joey Mengele wrote:
> Where does security come into play here? This is a local crash in a 
> non setuid binary. I would like to hear your remote exploitation 
> scenario. Or perhaps your local privilege escalation scenario?
>
> J
>
>   
I'll play advocate of the devil then. Imagine a wiki running on a webserver,

that allows anybody to create new topics which end up in
/articles/[Topic].txt
with sufficient .htaccess stuff in /articles to twart most usual attacks ..

If you could create an arbitrary long topic, then you *might*
be able to execute some code, when some cronjob would scan the drive
and come across the file?

creating files is a different privilege than  running code. Hence imho
it's not a bogus advisory.

another possibility would be to create an archive that extracts an
incredibly
long filename perhaps? scanning an archive before/after it's extracted
is a pretty common event i guess.

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