[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <543B0FF4.9080305@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:34:12 -0600
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
CC: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: Re: perl-Razor-Agent logs to /razor-agent.log
by default
On 12/10/14 03:09 PM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058772
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514979
>
>> I'm inclined to not call this a DoS ... I can see situations where
>> this could be a problem.
>
> Maybe a CVE is needed for Red Hat's SELinux configuration - see below.
>
> As far as we can tell, this may be intentional behavior from the
> perspective of the upstream code. If the razorhome setting has a ""
> value, then the product doesn't use full directory paths and instead
> defaults to the current working directory (the / directory here):
>
> sub read_conf {
> ...
> # add full path to all config values that need them
> if ($self->{razorhome}) {
> foreach (qw( logfile ...
>
>
> Here, $self->{razorhome} has a value of "" because /root/.razor
> doesn't exist (SELinux had previously prevented its creation):
>
> sub find_home {
> ...
> my $dotrazor = '.razor';
> ...
> $rhome = File::Spec->catdir("$ENV{HOME}", "$dotrazor");
> ...
> if (-d $rhome) {
> ...
> $self->{razorhome} = $rhome;
> return 1;
> }
> ...
> $self->{razorhome} = "";
>
> Are you interested in having a CVE assignment because this is a
> vulnerability in the default SELinux policy in various RHEL and Fedora
> versions? This seems to be an unusual situation in which denying write
> access to /root/.razor is what causes the vulnerability to exist.
In that case I would argue SELinux is doing its job as expressed by
policy, and that the flaw still lies in Razor not having a sane fallback
(like syslog, I mean WTF?). I think dropping files into / definitely
violates the principle of least surprise. There's also other reasons the
logging can fail, not just SELinux (apparmour, permissions, etc.).
> In other words, what is Red Hat's position on customer expectations
> for packages that function in an different/vulnerable way in SELinux
> Enforcing mode? Is it something like:
>
> - when Red Hat created the package, Red Hat was supposed to either
> ensure that the default SELinux policy was compatible with the
> filesystem access required by the package, or else develop a Red
> Hat custom patch to use a different part of the filesystem (e.g.,
> maybe something under /var instead of /root/.razor in this case)
>
> Or is it something like:
>
> - every user is on their own to read setroubleshoot reports,
> determine why SELinux Enforcing mode results in vulnerable
> behavior for a package shipped by Red Hat, and then use semanage
> commands to get the behavior that they want
>
> ? Also, if it's undesirable for a mail-handling daemon to write to the
> top-level / directory, shouldn't the default SELinux policy have
> prevented that? Is it possible to construct a policy to express a
> position such as "new top-level files aren't ever allowed; every new
> file must be at least one level below the / level"?
Ah so one note: we (as in RHT corporate) didn't create this package.
It's part of Fedora/EPEL (the community), it's not shipped as part of
RHEL or any of our products. I can assure had this been a corp package
we would have caught this flaw in regular testing (insert sad comment
about people setenforce'ing 0 killing a puppy/etc). Also it's been
static since 2010, everything past that is just mass rebuilds for F15+
and so on.
>> it doesn't appear that the attacker can trigger faster growth
>
> Of course, there can't be a CVE assignment unless an attacker can
> trigger faster growth. (Unexpected resource consumption caused solely
> by the administrator's decision to install perl-Razor-Agent doesn't
> qualify for a CVE; that doesn't cross privilege boundaries.)
>
> It looks like attackers were supposed to be able to trigger faster
> growth simply by sending more mail, e.g.,
>
> my $defaults = {
> debuglevel => "3",
>
> $self->log (3,"ignoring mail $obj->{id}, whitelisted by rule: $sh: $address");
>
> $self->log (3,"mail $obj->{id} is ". ($obj->{spam} ? '' : 'not ') ."known spam.");
>
> Is this even possible, or does SELinux Enforcing mode disrupt normal
> operation enough that the code never reaches "$self->log (3" lines?
Dunno, I haven't investigated this, I'm trying to eat turkey
(thanksgiving =).
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
