[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140331105711.GB8904@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:57:11 +0200
From: Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: pam_timestamp internals
Hi
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 02:32:09PM +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 01:46:43PM +0100, Sebastian Krahmer wrote:
> > When playing with some PAM modules for my own projects, I came
> > across some implications of pam_timestamp (which is part of
> > upstream linux-pam) that should probably be addressed.
> >
> > Most importantly, there seems to be a path traversal issue:
>
> Thanks, Sebastian! The issue has been fixed in upstream linux-pam by commit
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/linux-pam.git/commit/?id=Linux-PAM-1_1_8-32-g9dcead8
Thanks for taking care. I was about to write a patch on my own, but seems
not necessary anymore.
However, I think that
+ if (!strlen(tty) || !strcmp(tty, ".") || !strcmp(tty, "..")) {
could be insufficient. Any occurence of "." inside tty name
should be evil. Above strcmp() matches exactly "." or "..",
but you also want "../../" etc which should pass above check.
For the ruser check, the strchr(ruser, '/') safes this, but
".." occurence may also be treatened appropriately.
Sebastian
--
~ perl self.pl
~ $_='print"\$_=\47$_\47;eval"';eval
~ krahmer@...e.de - SuSE Security 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.
