|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: Solaris ld.so possibly vulnerable?
Casper Dik (casper
HOLLAND.SUN.COM)Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:47:28 +0200
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: better snprintf replacement, anyone?"
- Previous message: Casper Dik: "Re: procmail"
- In reply to: Adam Morrison: "Re: Solaris ld.so possibly vulnerable?"
>As for the existance of a stack overrun condition similar to the one >in Linux in the Solaris ld.so, I do not believe this to be the case. > >The bug the program you posted triggers is indeed becasue of a call to >strcpy(), however the buffers in question are not on the stack but are >malloc()ed during run time. (There are some cases where ld.so first calls >strlen() to determine how much memory to ask malloc() for, if I remember >correctly; obviously, the particular instance you've discovered is not one >of those). The bug is in a routine that formats error messages into a dynamically allocated buffer. SInce the buffer will live after the program's data segment, the _iob (stdioflow) trick won't work on it. Also, when applied to a set-uid/set-gid program it isn't possible to force an ld.so error using LD_PRELOAD (ignored) or many of the other LD_ variables; they're mostly ignored) However, in some versions of Solaris such errors are generated by the implementation of dynamically loadable functionality and on such systems you can crash set-uid executables. Casper
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: better snprintf replacement, anyone?"
- Previous message: Casper Dik: "Re: procmail"
- In reply to: Adam Morrison: "Re: Solaris ld.so possibly vulnerable?"