[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20040219030513.GA17672@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:05:13 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New mremap vulnerability
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:45:28PM -0500, Bill Jaeger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:42:19AM -0500, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:15:24AM -0600, Steve Bremer wrote:
> > > After reviewing the 2.4.24 -> 2.4.25 patch, it appears to me
> > > that those of us using either the 2.4.23-ow2 or 2.4.24-ow1 kernel
> > > patches are not affected by this latest mremap security bug. Can you
> > > confirm this? In fact, it looks like the code from the Openwall kernel
> > > patches in 2.4.25.
> >
> > Confirmed.
> >
> > I don't know why Paul chose to not mention it in his Bugtraq announcement,
> > he was aware that 2.4.23-ow2+ has this fixed.
>
> Are those of us running linux-2.2.25-ow1 (w/ -HAP extensions) vulnerable to
> the latest mremap(2) security hole?
There's been some mis-communication between me and Paul on that,
unfortunately. For the time being, you should assume that, yes, 2.2.x
is affected (although the exploit has to be different).
> If so, does anyone know of a patch that closes this hole under 2.2.25?
The obvious temporary workaround is to disable mremap() syscall (by
patching kernel sources or by patching sys_call_table[] from a kernel
module).
--
Alexander Peslyak <solar@...nwall.com>
GPG key ID: B35D3598 fp: 6429 0D7E F130 C13E C929 6447 73C3 A290 B35D 3598
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
