From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Thu Aug 27 13:51:02 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD199C287B for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:51:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FA21277 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:51:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from nine.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3491ACD5B; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by nine.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 03B69717; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:50:58 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Mike Tancsa Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-15:22.openssh References: <20150825212749.C154016C9@freefall.freebsd.org> <55DE0E74.4040000@sentex.net> <86h9nlqjmn.fsf@nine.des.no> <55DF0BBD.1080206@sentex.net> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:50:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <55DF0BBD.1080206@sentex.net> (Mike Tancsa's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:08:13 -0400") Message-ID: <864mjkrgal.fsf@nine.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:51:02 -0000 Mike Tancsa writes: > For the latter two, I am trying to understand in the context of a shared > hosting system. Could one user with sftp access to their own directory > use these bugs to gain access to another user's account ? Once again: both of these are attacks on the main sshd process by the unprivileged child provess, so the attacker first has to gain control of said child using some other vulnerability. There is currently no known way to exploit them. The reason why an advisory was issued is that by definition, the unprivileged child is assumed to be hostile. http://blog.des.no/2015/08/openssh-pam-and-user-names/ DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no