[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDF93A8.2080105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:26:16 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Disputing CVE-2011-4122
On 12/07/2011 07:26 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been asked by the kcheckpass maintainer to lodge a dispute of
> CVE-2011-4122.
>
> As explained in the blog entry linked from the CVE[1], the problem is
> that neither kcheckpass nor OpenPAM validate the 'service_name' input
> argument of pam_start(). This hole can be used to make PAM load
> arbitrary shared libraries, which can be used to execute arbitrary code
> as root, as kcheckpass is setuid root.
>
> One could assume that kcheckpass should do the validation. However, the
> PAM documentation makes no mention of what a service name is supposed to
> look like, and consequently it must be treated as opaque by the
> application code. Therefore all validation must be expected to be done
> by the library, and failure to do so must be seen as a bug in the
> library exclusively.
Can you provide a link to the documentation?
> As a result, it is correct to list kcheckpass as an affected
> application, but not as the origin of the vulnerability. The linked
> advisories from ISS and Secunia are clearer about that.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> [1]: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-4122
>
This is a good point/question. Steve?
--
-Kurt Seifried / Red Hat Security Response Team
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
