Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:51:02 +0100 From: Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com CC: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>, Stefan Fritsch <sf@...itsch.de>, Jan Kaluza <jkaluza@...hat.com>, Florian Zumbiehl <florz@...rz.de>, Paul Martin <pm@...ian.org>, Petr Uzel <petr.uzel@...e.cz>, Thomas Biege <thomas@...e.de> Subject: Re: CVE Request -- logrotate -- nine issues Hi Solar, Solar Designer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:35:03PM +0100, Jan Lieskovsky wrote: >> For issue #5: >> >> If the mail configuration directive is used, an attacker can trick >> logrotate into sending arbitrary files by mail, by creating >> appropriate hard or soft links. >> >> Hope that's enough, let me know if not. > > I can definitely figure this out by looking at the code, but the > description alone looks insufficient to me. It does not say what > directory those links would need to be created in. If it's the log > files' directory, which I suspect is the case, This should describe the case of log directories, writable also by other (unprivileged) users and not just by root. then this issue falls in > the same controversial category as most of the rest. If it's /tmp, then > this is in fact a vulnerability in logrotate, without a doubt. > >>> The rest, as described, appear to rely on sysadmin error and to assume >>> security properties that logrotate never advertised it had. Specifically, >>> logrotate was never declared to be safe to use on untrusted directories, >>> and it was an error for a sysadmin to make such an assumption. >> We don't mind documenting of this behavior in appropriate places. > > Do you mean the fact that logrotate is not meant for use on untrusted > directories? Yes, have meant this. The majority of the reported issues exist because logrotate does not have (at least I don't know of, maybe wrong) a policy, how to behave when rotating log files in such directories. Another problem is (as Florian already pointed out) logrotate often being run under privileged (root) user account as part of (daily) cron job. Or, on the contrary, claim that it is safe for that after > the hardening changes to be made now? I prefer the former. > >> Wouldn't like to condescend further into particulars, what is and what >> is not a security issue (as this is beyond this post), but according >> to our opinion even non-documented incorrect behavior, allowing >> malicious actions to be performed on the system, should be considered >> a security flaw (regardless if it's advertised or not). Because by applying >> your above approach, most of the open source project could just say >> 'this software is not intended to be run like that.' > > Like I wrote in my reply to Florian, this is about expectations. You > say "incorrect behavior", which makes sense to me. This is about absence of 'default user account other than root' to run the tasks under, when processing attacker controllable directory. You already proposed 'another user, less privilege user account' to run the tasks under in reply to Florian. For example, "cp" > is also unsafe in untrusted directories, but its behavior is > nevertheless "correct" (because it is documented), so you would not call > it a security flaw for that reason. Fair enough. I got your point. But still think there is a difference between the case privileged system user would use 'cp' by accident in untrusted directory and corrupt the system and case, when some utility is running under privileged user account on regular basis and not taking 'untrusted directories' into account / not having a policy, how to behave while processing them. > > However, then there are things such as text editors, which are also > unsafe for use on files in untrusted directories. Is it "incorrect > behavior" that they are? To me, this has always been the historically > expected unsafety. However, Dan Rosenberg managed to get a CVE id for > such an issue in an editor. I was surprised. The issue did not affect > us (we were not packaging the editor), but if it did we would not call > it a vulnerability. Just wrong/flawed expectations by the user. For example CVE-2010-2055 has been assigned to Ghostscript's reading of initialization files from $CWD. CVE-2010-3349, 3350, 3355, 3369 and many others have been assigned to insecure library loading vulnerabilities. In comparison with the above, how running of logrotate utlity on untrusted directory differs? Even when it is often run regularly and under root user account. How many system users check the directory permissions prior running the utility? How many administrators check them regularly? Agree, the majority of these issue would disappear when logrotate would just refuse to process such a directory. But currently it doesn't. That CVE request is just attempt to pinpoint the need of change. > > Again, as I wrote to Florian, maybe the expectations here are changing > over the years. However, if so, wouldn't it be right to have hardening > introduced into the relevant programs first, the expectations > "officially" changed (although I'd rather not do that), and only if/when > that hardening is later determined to be insufficient start saying > "vulnerability" and assigning CVE ids? Maybe you are correct. And maybe this discussion should happen on completely different mailing list. When I was asking Florian, when the issues went public, the answer was: "Those are known for a long time already and logrotate is known to have such kind of defects." This post is nothing else, just to start thinking about the change. Enumerate the issues and perform the steps towards the change. > > Speaking of issues where a more or differently privileged process > accesses files in a directory writable by another process, these are > surprisingly difficult to "fully" deal with, and the majority of > programs are "affected". Of the common Unix commands, only a handful > are safe to use in untrusted directories (with possible impact of > attacks being a mere DoS against the command itself) - such as "ln". > Yes, I actually use "ln" like this: > > # su - user1 > $ cp some/dir/file . # hopefully the ~/file name was not taken > $ exit > # ln ~user1/file . > # ls -ld file # sanity check that we were not raced > # chown user2: file > # ln file ~user2/ > # rm file > # su - user2 > $ mv file target/dir/ > $ exit > # su - user1 > $ rm file Agree. But would still mention the difference between binary, which is intended to be run by privileged user (aware of the consequences) and common tool, dedicated to processing of *.log files everywhere (and run under root account). > > when I need to copy a file from one untrusted user to another. Yes, > this is complicated and it has limitations (same fs). Maybe we need a > special tool for this task (I had some ideas on this - "give" and "take" > commands). But that's the current situation. To be honest, we didn't come to solution how to solve this in logrotate yet. One of the proposals was logrotate to refuse process *.log files in such directories. The CVE request was an attempt to speak publicly such issues are there and we need to start thinking about their solution. > > Almost all other commands and programs are unsafe on untrusted > directories. In my opinion, that's the only correct assumption for a > sysadmin to make, and any other assumption is naive. Agree here. But as stated above, how many sysadmins perform this task prior running the tool? How many do it regularly? Unfortunately, > most sysadmins don't fully realize this (in my experience), but that > does not make those programs any safer, nor does it prompt us to assign > CVE ids against almost all Unix programs. See above. Ghostscript vs logrotate. How untrusted directory for GS differs from untrusted directory for logrotate? > >> Not trying to argue, > > I also primarily mean to share some info/understanding/reasoning rather > than to argue. > >> just saying the disclination like the above doesn't help anyone. > > I think it does. But I am willing to shut up. ;-) I sure am not going > to post stuff that people don't want to receive/read. ;-) In final consequence thinking your post initiated what was intended -- the communication about those issues. > >> Either the software has the issues, and they should be fixed, >> or it has the issues, and they can't be fixed. Then the software >> should not be used and an alternative one should be found. > > No software is perfect, and almost any piece of software can be improved > endlessly. But that's mere rhetoric. Sure. Just wanted to differentiate the 'unsupported functionality' from undocumented functionality, which may be harmful. > > I don't mind logrotate being hardened against these issues. We do a lot > of hardening in other areas, so why not here. I just don't blame > logrotate for the issues. See above -- absence of policy how to deal with untrusted directories. Absence of privilege delegation. I blame improper service packages and > insufficient sysadmin education Agree. . Hardening logrotate and not fixing > those other truly broken packages sounds plain wrong to me. How many users check content of their $CWD prior launching gs? The latter > part of it (not fixing), not the former. As to CVE ids against > logrotate, I don't care much; it's just that we're not going to say our > logrotate update fixes 9 vulnerabilities. We may say it fixes one (the > #8 issue). Ok. > >> This is not you would shoot yourself into the foot by accident >> (by performing some action). This is about local users', aware >> of the deficiencies, ability to conduct such actions on the system, >> so they would reach some higher privilege, damage or different >> kind of benefit for them. > > Sorry, your desired meaning of the above escapes me... Nevermind. The purpose of the last paragraph was to distinguish 'admin negligence', Steve mentions earlier and actions, which may be performed in the background, actions, which logrotate allows (changes to log files in untrusted / writable directories) and actions, which users using the utility may not even notice until something really bad happens. > > Thank you for your response! Same from my side. Thanks for the thoughts, which initiated (partial) discussion. Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team > > Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ