Skip to comments.
Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack
Red Hat ^
| Update 2014-09-25 16:00 UTC
| Red Hat
Posted on 09/25/2014 7:04:10 PM PDT by palmer
Red Hat is aware that the patch for CVE-2014-6271 is incomplete. An attacker can provide specially-crafted environment variables containing arbitrary commands that will be executed on vulnerable systems under certain conditions. The new issue has been assigned CVE-2014-7169.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at securityblog.redhat.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: bash; linux; macos; macoschat
There are clueless news media stories focussing on the server side vulnerabilities as if anyone writes their CGI scripts in shell script (specifically bash) and inserts unsanitized user input into those scripts. That is cave man stupid programming.
However what is disturbing to me is the possibility that you walk into a coffee shop and their malicious DHCP server sends your DHPC client some extra bash commands to run. Not sure if this is really a problem or not. Any Linux or MacOS experts have a clue?
1
posted on
09/25/2014 7:04:10 PM PDT
by
palmer
To: palmer
That would be a weakness in any shell, if they can insert stuff into your session.
2
posted on
09/25/2014 7:10:03 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: palmer
However what is disturbing to me is the possibility that you walk into a coffee shop and their malicious DHCP server sends your DHPC client some extra bash commands to run. Not sure if this is really a problem or not. Any Linux or MacOS experts have a clue? I have set up and maintained DHCP servers and sending bash commands is certainly not a standard thing to do. I haven't examined the entire dhcpd.conf language, but I haven't come across anything that would do this. It's not like a pxe server which actually installs software on the requesting machine. (Nobody is going to accidentally do a pxe boot in a coffee shop. Not to worry.)
To: palmer
But the more things change the more they stay the same. People “COULD” code servers so as to involve shells. They probably should not, at least not without serious effort to do it in a sanitized environment.
4
posted on
09/25/2014 7:12:21 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: palmer; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1234; Abundy; Action-America; acoulterfan; AFreeBird; Airwinger; Aliska; ...
UNIX, LINUX, and OSX security PING. There is a vulnerability in BASH that can allow access to your computers. There is a complex fix, but even GEEKS are having difficulty implementing it. Apple will be pushing something out soon. It appears that it is a risk, although most Macs are not using such an access unless they have a printer available for net access, are hosting a website, or otherwise permitting their Mac to be open for access on the Internet. DO NOT ASSUME that your Mac is not open. Do not share your printers on the web. PING!

Apple OSX, LINUX, UNIX SECURITY Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
5
posted on
09/25/2014 7:16:48 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: palmer
From what I’ve been able to find out this vulnerability is in Bash and It affects BASH versions 1.13 (22 years ago) up to 4.3.
6
posted on
09/25/2014 7:23:23 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: palmer
7
posted on
09/25/2014 7:29:56 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: Swordmaker
Then the pertinent questions are how many system functions invoke bash and how many of those use remote input (e.g. the DHCP server data in my example). I have not looked into it, but it if were writing a DHCP client I would not invoke bash with anything from the server side.
Invoking bash to do random system stuff is sort of cheap and dirty way to allow flexible system configuration. In the case of a DHCP client, I'm not sure why any such flexibility is needed. The client has to set some names and addresses and that is about it. I just glanced through the DHCP spec and see nothing about invoking a shell script or anything hinting at that. That particular avenue of attack may be speculation.
8
posted on
09/25/2014 7:37:19 PM PDT
by
palmer
(This comment is not approved or cleared by FDA)
To: the_Watchman
I just looked through the DHCP spec and saw no clues that suggested that any shell commands are sent across to the client.
9
posted on
09/25/2014 7:40:26 PM PDT
by
palmer
(This comment is not approved or cleared by FDA)
To: palmer
I read through the ICMP message formats at one point and I do not recall any method of sending arbitrary text strings comprising commands to be executed.
To: palmer
Clever way to get tons of people to upgrade to the latest bash.
Who knows if there are worse vulnerabilities in it.
I never liked the idea of public wifi, that is connecting to any old bandito wifi network you happen to walk by.
Wireless (phone modem) places you on your paid providers network.
11
posted on
09/25/2014 9:55:06 PM PDT
by
PieterCasparzen
(We have to fix things ourselves)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson