Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Aug 1997 01:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Nathan Dorfman <nathan@senate.org>
To:        marcs@znep.com (Marc Slemko)
Cc:        freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Vulnerability in 4.4BSD rfork() implementation
Message-ID:  <199708030507.BAA15769@limbo.senate.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970802214104.12645Y-100000@alive.znep.com> from Marc Slemko at "Aug 2, 97 09:53:52 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Thomas H. Ptacek wrote:
> 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                 
> >                         OpenBSD Security Advisory
> >         
> >                               August 2, 1997
> > 
> >                   Vulnerability in rfork() System Call
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > SYNOPSIS
> > 
> > A vulnerability in certain 4.4BSD kernels allows processes to gain
> > access to restricted resources by manipulating the file descriptor
> > tables of SUID and SGID executables. Applications of this vulnerability
> > will allow users to gain root access. 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > AFFECTED SYSTEMS
> > 
> > It is believed that all 4.4BSD operating systems implementing the 
> > rfork() system call are currently vulnerable to this problem. These
> > operating systems include OpenBSD 2.1 and FreeBSD 3.0. The OpenBSD
> > project has resolved this problem in OpenBSD-current.
> 
> Since this wasn't entirely clear on some of the FreeBSD aspects, a few
> comments...
> 
> First, this is a real hole.  Earlier today it took me only a few minutes
> to make a program to add another uid 0 to your passwd file to give you
> root access.  With the skeleton code posted in this advisory, it is even
> easier.
> 
> Secondly, FreeBSD 2.2 (probably any version of 2.2-current starting
> around 1996/02/23) and 3.0 are both vulnerable.  2.1 and earlier are not.
 
I compiled and ran the two tests below on a 3.0-CURRENT system (cvsuped and
compiled Tue Jul 29 21:37:02 EDT 1997. It failed to create a /VULNERABLE.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708030507.BAA15769>