Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Ah, I think I see. You have to put libbad.so into /lib64 (emulating > libpcprofile), then set LD_AUDIT to just "libbad.so.0", with no path. > At that point it works as expected (at least for me). (Though this is a > multilib setup. But ping is 64-bit; on a single-bit-widt

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Bryan Kadzban
d ping >> >> Whereas if your glibc is not broken (2.10.1 is not... :-) ), it >> will only print the ping usage. > > I tried this on a freshly built LFS-20101024 but couldn't reproduce > the problem. As a non-root user I get just the ping usage message. > As the root

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:32:48 -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: > It'll be a while until I run another full build, but I'm recompiling glibc > now, with the patch I uploaded earlier. I'll post results tomorrow, but > expect it to work just fine. Well, it didn't appear to fix the vulnerability here,

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
:-) ), it will > only print the ping usage. I tried this on a freshly built LFS-20101024 but couldn't reproduce the problem. As a non-root user I get just the ping usage message. As the root user, I get: ERROR: ld.so: object '/tmp/libbad.so.0' cannot be loaded as audit interf

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Matthew Burgess wrote: > Quoting from the vulnerability description above: > > "This security issue allows a local attacker to gain root if they can > create a hard link to a setuid root binary." > > So, on your system, is that possible? That's actually not the only exploit vector. See the fol

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 9:59:25 -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:38:27 -0400, Drew Ames wrote: > >> 1) Is it worth downloading and using the development version of Glibc >> from git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git to build LFS with the updated >> source? > > I wouldn't be keen

Re: Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:38:27 -0400, Drew Ames wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > Here's an interesting security update from Slackware that gives some > information on a recent vulnerability exposed in Glibc: > > glibc-2.11.1-i486-4_slack13.1.txz: Rebuilt. >

Glibc vulnerability . . . implications for LFS?

2010-10-24 Thread Drew Ames
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Here's an interesting security update from Slackware that gives some information on a recent vulnerability exposed in Glibc: glibc-2.11.1-i486-4_slack13.1.txz: Rebuilt. Patched "dynamic linker expands $ORIGIN in setuid library search p