[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <662C8372.80709@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:47:46 -0500
From: Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Update on the distro-backdoor-scanner effort
Hank Leininger wrote:
> [...]
>
> Where we are: main things investigated:
>
> - Similar exploitation toolkits / operator-behavior in other packages?
>
> [...]
>
> - Output is manageable; able to rule out all hits not part of the
> actual xz-utils backdoors as false positives.
>
This is what I would expect: the backdoor dropper appears to have been
specifically developed for xz-utils, but could /possibly/ be adaptable
to other compression tools. This is a much narrower field to search
than "every package in the distribution" and the potentially reusable
"smoking gun" parts (the stage2 and actual blob) were hidden in a way
that no scanner could plausibly find.
That said, it would be possible to hide a similar backdoor in another
package and use the /installed/ xz to unpack it, but this would (again)
require very different patterns in the outermost dropper layers, since
the backdoor would have to be hidden somehow in another file type. Most
packages will not have xz files in their testsuites. While I do not
believe that there are more backdoors to find, the chances of any string
match based on this one finding another are tiny.
> - Examine the provenance of every .m4 in every package unpacked above
>
> [...]
> - Big TODOs here are to implement fuzzy hashing when we don't have
> a perfect match, so that we can pick the best knowngood candidate
> to offer a diff against and to group the unknowns amongst
> themselves, and something to facilitate tracking of diff-review
> (CSV or another sqlite DB that tracks review status?), and then
> to actually read all the diffs (currently only spot-checked).
>
You might get better results by indexing macro definitions found in *.m4
files, instead of trying to fuzzily hash the files. The interesting
comparison is then different definitions of macros with the same name.
> - Compare decompression of xz-utils vs other compatible tools
>
> - Just to check for some obvious Thompsonesque weird machine where
> xz injects malicious .c code into a tarball it unpacks, etc. Very
> unlikely to find anything.
>
While I agree that this is unlikely, the crackers missed an
opportunity: many (most?) modern Linux kernels are compressed using xz,
which means that a Thompsonesque attack could binary-patch a freshly
built kernel while compressing vmlinux to make vmlinuz. (The last time
I watched a kernel build, Linux is first linked to produce a kernel
image ("vmlinux"), which is then compressed and attached to a
decompression stub to produce the final bootable image ("vmlinuz").)
Accomplishing such an attack with a weird machine is /very/ unlikely.
Having the inserted blob target xz itself would make far more sense, and
the blob from this backdoor (according to reports so far) only targets sshd.
> - Found nothing except some minor bugs in other decompressors (will
> submit upstream bugs, but low priority).
>
I expect that you will find nothing here, but if you are paranoid
enough, patching the Linux build process to run a similar comparison on
common distribution kernels might be interesting. You would want to
ensure that decompressing the compressed kernel image (preferably with a
standalone decompressor derived from the xz-embedded used in Linux's
decompression stub) yields the original uncompressed kernel image.
> - Still plan to add more different decompressors for completeness.
>
I would like to suggest 7-zip here.
> What's next: rough notions only, not yet implemented:
>
> - Analyze IFUNC real-world use. They're dodgy and weird and useful for
> backdoors like this one. Removing IFUNC support from glibc has been
> floated: https://marc.info/?l=glibc-alpha&m=171389592724184&w=4
> But that'll get hung up on "but what if users". AFAWK nobody knows.
> So let's find out: survey sources & binaries from major distros and
> get some actual numbers. Also thegrugq made an interesting
> observation: it'd be telling which projects recently _added_ IFUNC
> use, if any. See
> https://github.com/hlein/distro-backdoor-scanner/issues/16
>
The IFUNC mechanism is actually a security feature. In "inner-loop"
code, having multiple implementations with different optimizations with
the preferred implementation for the local processor chosen at runtime
is fairly common. This is most common in cryptographic and other
data-processing libraries, where small incremental improvements can
significantly add up.
The catch is that choosing an implementation at runtime means that you
must dispatch through a function pointer somewhere, typically in the
data segment, which is writable and leads to possible ways to hijack
control if those function pointers can be corrupted. IFUNCs allow
storing those function pointers in the PLT, which can be made read-only
after relocation is completed, most importantly long before *any* input
is processed, if LD_BIND_NOW or "-z now" are used to disable lazy binding.
The backdoor does not seem (according to reports so far) to actually use
the IFUNC mechanism as anything other than a way to gain control of
execution early in process initialization. In fact, the backdoor's
IFUNC resolver ran "too early" so the backdoor tampered with ld.so's
data segment to register itself using parts of the LD_AUDIT mechanism,
so it would be called later when the PLT entries that it actually wanted
to hijack would exist. I am still unsure whether IFUNC was actually
needed here or if __attribute__((__constructor__)) could achieve the
same results.
I currently suspect that the crackers used IFUNC support as a covert
flag. The "jankiness" of the current glibc IFUNC implementation
provided a convenient excuse to ask oss-fuzz to --disable-ifunc when
building xz-utils, which *also* conveniently inhibited the backdoor
dropper and ensured that the fuzzing builds would not contain the backdoor.
> - Check for irregular contents in .pc files, inspired by Vegard
> Nossum's oss-security post
> https://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=171335763115933&w=4
> This seems it'd be pretty easy to look for known bads. Starting
> notes: https://github.com/hlein/distro-backdoor-scanner/issues/7
>
Much easier: look for pkg-config descriptions containing text other
than a variable definition. The pkg-config tool itself should probably
enforce "cleanliness" on this matter and refuse to process files
containing other text. (It also should complain about and reject an
*-uninstalled.pc file found in the system directories, which was another
logic error exploited in that sample backdoor.)
-- Jacob
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.
