Remote Exploit Discovered for OpenBSD

An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD is known for its security policies, and for its boast of "only one remote exploit in over 10 years". Well, make that two, because Core Security has found a remotely exploitable buffer overflow in the OpenBSD kernel. Upgrade your firewalls as soon as possible."

Heh

[cyberbob2351 (1075435)]

From TFA:

Remotely Exploitable: Yes
Locally Exploitable: No

That right there is the biggest slap in the face! Everyone should have the freedom to fux0r their own machine!

Opensource my ass...

Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well done. It's not an easy feat to create an OS with so little exploits. The team and Microsoft should take a leaf out of your book.

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[by Anonymous Coward]

You think the problem is that Microsoft can't create a secure OS? You don't think the problem is all the legacy crap, and the everything under the sun and everything to everyone demands placed upon it? Not that what OpenBSD has achieved as a track record isn't impressive. But serving one master (of one's own choosing) well, it not the same thing as being the most favored servent to the most masters.

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[Kandenshi (832555)]

I heard a rumour that Microsoft did indeed look to the idea of emulating OpenBSD's security practices as a company.

Then someone pointed out the respective revenues of OpenBSD vs Microsoft, and the whole idea just seemed to evaporate.

Someone decided that people don't care enough about the number of remote exploits found in a given OS. They were probably right.

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

I heard a rumour that Microsoft did indeed look to the idea of emulating OpenBSD's security practices as a company.

Then someone pointed out the respective revenues of OpenBSD vs Microsoft, and the whole idea just seemed to evaporate.

My company makes far more than the OpenBSD team brings in, and yet we still respect them and try to emulate their practices. I'm not sure what kind of hubris it takes to dismiss someone's ideas just because you have more money.

Re:

[drsmithy (35869)]

Well done. It's not an easy feat to create an OS with so little exploits. The team and Microsoft should take a leaf out of your book.

It is when basically the only thing your OS does "in the default install" is allow SSH logins.

(Which is not to attack the excellent work of the OpenBSD team, but comparing it to Windows is in this fashion is just asinine.)

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[Tom (822)]

It is when basically the only thing your OS does "in the default install" is allow SSH logins.

Which is more remote access than a default install of Windos contains. ;-)

Ok, make that "more intentional remote access"...

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

The default install of OpenBSD includes (from memory, so this is not exhaustive) SSHd, bind, apache and sendmail, all of which are included in the term 'Only two remote holes in the default install' - those codebases are as rigourously audited as anything else.

Re:

[drsmithy (35869)]

The default install of OpenBSD includes (from memory, so this is not exhaustive) SSHd, bind, apache and sendmail, all of which are included in the term 'Only two remote holes in the default install' [...]

They're "included" in that the binaries are there, but they are not enabled (except SSH). Ie: they're not part of "the default install" as far as remote vulnerabilities goes.

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Note that many Sendmail and Apache exploits do not affect OpenBSD, for two reasons:

1. The kernel contains a lot of exploit mitigation stuff, that may well turn an arbitrary code execution into a DoS.
2. OpenBSD doesn't actually include Sendmail or Apache, it includes forks of both. These are heavily audited by the OpenBSD guys, and not all of the changes are merged upstream.

When a new category of bug is found in OpenBSD, the entire tree is searched for occurrences of it. This often means that seemingly innocuous changes in something like OpenBSD's httpd turn out to have fixed things that are later found to be security holes.

Re:

[VGPowerlord (621254)]

The team and Microsoft should take a leaf out of your book.

What team, the A Team? Should take out Microsoft?

I love it when a plan comes together.

Re:

[TheDarkener (198348)]

...Microsoft should take a leaf out of your book.
 
Uhh, they did. TCP/IP stack.
 
Of course, you can't ever say a leaf made the tree...

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[Leto-II (1509)]

Could this be a sign of overconfidence in the Linux community?

Not really, since this has nothing to do with Linux. It's OpenBSD, not Linux.

Re:Well done, the OpenBSD team.

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

The thing is, it doesn't matter. The OpenBSD folk treat pretty much every bug as a security hole. I heard one of them say this, which I think should be taken to heart by all software developers:

The only difference between a bug and a security hole is the intelligence of the attacker.

As such, the hole was patched when they thought it was just a DoS. All escalating it does is encourage admins not to actually apply the patches.

It's a feature

[andy314159pi (787550)]

Vulnerability Description
The OpenBSD kernel contains a memory corruption vulnerability in the code that handles IPv6 packets. Exploitation of this vulnerability can result in:
1) Remote execution of arbitrary code at the kernel level on the vulnerable systems (complete system compromise), or;
2) Remote denial of service attacks against vulnerable systems (system crash due to a kernel panic)

I think they just found the Windows2003 Server Emulator.

Re:It's a feature

[ArsenneLupin (766289)]

I think they just found the Windows2003 Server Emulator.

Joking aside, finding a bug in BSD networking code could indeed mean that various Windows versions have that very same bug. Hats, to your keyboards!

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Not in this case. This was a bug in the IPv6 code, which comes from the KAME project. The BSD TCP/IP stack used by some versions of Windows comes from the 4BSD series, pre-dating KAME (and IPv6 in general) by quite some years.

Advisory Timeline

[fv (95460)]

I'm a bit surprised that the summary didn't mention the rather interesting timeline in the Core advisory [seclists.org], which implies an attempted cover up. I don't know all the facts, so I'll let the document speak for itself:

• 2007-02-20: First notification sent by Core.
• 2007-02-20: Acknowledgement of first notification received from the OpenBSD team.
• 2007-02-21: Core sends draft advisory and proof of concept code that demonstrates remote kernel panic.
• 2007-02-26: OpenBSD team develops a fix and commits it to the HEAD branch of source tree.
• 2007-02-26: OpenBSD team communicates that the issue is specific to OpenBSD. OpenBSD no longer uses the term "vulnerability" when referring to bugs that lead to a remote denial of service attack, as opposed to bugs that lead to remote control of vulnerable systems to avoid oversimplifying ("pablumfication") the use of the term.
• 2007-02-26: Core email sent to OpenBSD team explaining that Core considers a remote denial of service a security issue and therefore does use the term "vulnerability" to refer to it and that although remote code execution could not be proved in this specific case, the possibility should not be discarded. Core requests details about the bug and if possible an analysis of why the OpenBSD team may or may not consider the bug exploitable for remote code execution.
• 2007-02-28: OpenBSD team indicates that the bug results in corruption of mbuf chains and that only IPv6 code uses that mbuf code, there is no user data in the mbuf header fields that become corrupted and it would be surprising to be able to run arbitrary code using a bug so deep in the mbuf code. The bug simply leads to corruption of the mbuf chain.
• 2007-03-05: Core develops proof of concept code that demonstrates remote code execution in the kernel context by exploiting the mbuf overflow.
• 2007-03-05: OpenBSD team notified of PoC availability.
• 2007-03-07: OpenBSD team commits fix to OpenBSD 4.0 and 3.9 source tree branches and releases a "reliability fix" notice on the project's website.
• 2007-03-08: Core sends final draft advisory to OpenBSD requesting comments and official vendor fix/patch information.
• 2007-03-09: OpenBSD team changes notice on the project's website to "security fix" and indicates that Core's advisory should reflect the requirement of IPv6 connectivity for a successful attack from outside of the local network. 2007-03-12: Advisory updates with fix and workaround information and with IPv6 connectivity comments from OpenBSD team. The "vendors contacted" section of the advisory is adjusted to reflect more accurately the nature of the communications with the OpenBSD team regarding this issue.
• 2007-03-12: Workaround recommendations revisited. It is not yet conclusive that the "scrub in inet6" directive will prevent exploitation. It effectively stops the bug from triggering according to Core's tests but OpenBSD's source code inspection does not provide a clear understanding of why that happens. It could just be that the attack traffic is malformed in some other way that is not meaningful for exploiting the vulnerability (an error in the exploit code rather than an effective workaround?). The "scrub" workaround recommendation is removed from the advisory as precaution.
• 2007-03-13: Core releases this advisory.

-Fyodor
Insecure.Org [insecure.org]

Re:Advisory Timeline

[evilviper (135110)]

which implies an attempted cover up.

Cover up? The OpenBSD team believed it was only a remote DoS vulnerability until proof of concept code was provided, and re-labeled it as such immediately.

What part seems suspicious to you?

Re:

[Secret Rabbit (914973)]

LOL. So, then the OpenBSD team isn't part of the software industry?

Because, they've never come up with anything security wise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_feat ures [wikipedia.org]

Not at all.

Re:Advisory Timeline

[LizardKing (5245)]

A remote kernel panic is a reliability issue - you can't exploit a paniced system! The OpenBSD team couldn't see a way to exploit the issue, Core subsequently proved that a panic could be avoided and exploit code executed, at which time it was upgraded to a security issue by the OpenBSD team. No conspiracy necessary.

Re:Advisory Timeline

[jrockway (229604)]

> Availability is a key facet of security. There's no fuckin' point having a "secure" system which you can't even use.

Sure there is. Think, for example, of a data warehouse containing social security numbers. Would you prefer that that system go down entirely, or that the contents of the database is exposed. A system that detects trouble and shuts itself down until someone fixes it sounds good to me.

Also, by your standards, a power failure is a security hole. That's just not true.

Re:

[Secret Rabbit (914973)]

I think you're reading too much into things. It's FAR more likely that the OBSD team has become somewhat overconfidenct in there code. As such, since remote exploit wasn't shown and was unlikely, they dismissed that.

But, cover up? Yah right. Please, note that the OBSD team NEVER denied that a problem existed. They fixed it. It was only the wording that was in contest until remote execution was shown and they verified it.

Re:

[ctzan (908029)]

From the bugtraq advisory:

*Credits* This vulnerability was found and researched by Alfredo Ortega from Core Security Technologies. The proof-of-concept code included in the advisory was developed by Alfredo Ortega with assistance from Mario Vilas and Gerardo Richarte.

From the OpenBSD CVS log:

revision 1.27 date: 2007/02/26 20:15:33; author: claudio; state: Exp; lines: +2 -6 m_dup1() copies the packet header and allocates the mbuf cluster in the wrong order. M_DUP_PKTHDR needs to be called w

They've earned a mulligan, I think

[peacefinder (469349)]

I'll spot them some skepticism or overconfidence. It's been proven again and again that they're right to think OpenBSD is a hard target, so it's understandable that they wanted to see proof before bumping their counter up.

As for a "cover up"... well, if such a thing happend I'd say they must really suck at coverups, since we all know about it. :-)

Re:Advisory Timeline

[fv (95460)]

I wouldn't call it a cover up. I would say its a case of overconfidence.

That could be. And don't get me wrong -- I'm a big OpenBSD fan and even have one of their posters framed and hanging in my home. But I think they could have handled this better. Given that security is their main selling point, I'd like to see the OpenBSD guys treat all buffer overflows as potentially exploitable. In this case, it appears that the fix to 3.9 and 4.0 branches was delayed for an extra week until Core produced a working remote root exploit. The problem with requiring a working exploit from bug reporters is that most of them lack the ability or inclination (or both) to produce one. This bug just happened to be reported by some of the best exploit writers in the world.

Also, even if the bug did only allow anyone to cause remote kernel panic on your OpenBSD firewall or server with a single packet, that is still a security vulnerability. They can call it a DoS vulnerability if they are sure one cannot lead to code execution.

-Fyodor [insecure.org]

Re:Advisory Timeline

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

it appears that the fix to 3.9 and 4.0 branches was delayed for an extra week until Core produced a working remote root exploit

I think this makes sense, to be honest. If it's just a DoS, then I'd rather not put the code in my kernel until it's been well tested (I can remote-reboot my machine, if all else fails, and then apply the patch). If it's a remote code execution then it's pretty hard for any change to make it worse.

I really like OpenBSD, but I really miss having an analogue of FreeBSD's portaudit utility. Since the source data used by portaudit provides OpenBSD and FreeBSD vulnerability info, I wonder if anyone has tried porting it...

Barely "remote"

[_iris (92554)]

"remote" in this case only means "not local." It does not, in any way, mean "far away," as the attacker has to be able to inject fragmented IPv6 packets, which is extremely hard to control (impossible?) from the other side of a layer 3 device.

Re:Barely "remote"

[pchan- (118053)]

From the exploit text:

However, in order to exploit a vulnerable system an attacker needs to be able to inject fragmented IPv6 packets on the target system's local network. This requires direct physical/logical access to the target's local network

So nobody from the net can crack your machine, they must already me on your local net. This greatly reduces the scope of this attack.

OpenBSD - now TWICE as insecure

[by Anonymous Coward]

Wow, OpenBSD's security rating just went from "999,999" on a scale of 1 to a million to "999,998" on a scale of 1 to a million.

Holy Cow, an OpenBSD Vuln?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Thank GOD I run the company webserver on NT!

pablumfication

[vocaro (569257)]

Can anyone explain what pablumfication means? The only hit [google.com] is the very same report. I thought maybe it was pablumification [google.com], but that only gets two more hits.

Re:

[chenjeru (916013)]

While 'pablumification' does seem to be a newly made word, the root 'pablum' is a bland children's porridge. The ever-handy Wikipedia has this to say:

_In lower case, the word pablum is often used to describe anything bland, oversimplified and generally unsatisfying, especially a work of literature or speech. This usage is thought to derive from the cereal. Today, the word pablum and the original Latin word pabulum are often used interchangeably. In Canada, pablum remains as a generic reference to any instan

Re:

[Cheapy (809643)]

Sure. Look at the given text for the first google hit. It says "disneyification." This lead me to believe this term was referring to "pablum". So I looked that up, and found out that "pablum" is used to describe oversimplification of something.

Wikipedia has a good entry on Pablum.

OpenBSD Website

[by Anonymous Coward]

From the OPENBSD Website:
Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years!

At least they don't hide it.

Fixed in OpenBSD 4.1

[chrysalis (50680)]

Fortunately, that bug has been fixed before the OpenBSD 4.1 CDs were sent to the press.

Can we now please stop using C?

[master_p (608214)]

Isn't it enough? even the best programmers can make a mistake with C (and no, it may be programmers that make the mistakes, but you have to be at least a Q in order to make an 100% correct C program).

Can we please stop using C?

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224594&cid= 18191856 [slashdot.org]

Re:Can we now please stop using C?

[tomstdenis (446163)]

No. Answer? C gives you more control over the hardware which is required for something like an OS. It also has things like "pointers" required for memory mapped I/O.

C++ ? Out of the question. Too many hidden operations make development a nightmare.
Java? Are you even kiddin me? (yes, I know there are Java OSes, how those working out for you?)
C#?..

ooh ooh I know, Perl!!!

If you want to reduce your bugs [in any language] simple steps

1. Design code that you can verify and test
2. Write modular code
3. Re-use code as much as possible

In this case, it seems the mbuf pointer gets changed before it's accessed later in the function. If they had tracked the life of that variable they would have spotted it. That type of error could have happened in any language.

Forced release?

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

FTFA:

2007-02-21: Core sends draft advisory and proof of concept code that demonstrates remote kernel panic.
2007-02-26: OpenBSD team develops a fix and commits it to the HEAD branch of source tree.
[...]
2007-03-05: OpenBSD team notified of PoC availability.
2007-03-07: OpenBSD team commits fix to OpenBSD 4.0 and 3.9 source tree branches and releases a "reliability fix" notice on the project's website.
[...]
2007-03-13: Core releases this advisory.
Release Mode: FORCED RELEASE

Kudos to Core Security for finding an exploit in OpenBSD code. Seriously, that's impressive. However, it sounds like they're a little too pleased with themselves. "Forced release"? I guess that's technically true, in the sense that a feather exerts a gravitational force on the Earth.

In a nutshell, they reported a problem and OpenBSD fixed it. Then they demonstrated that it was a more serious problem, and OpenBSD backported the fix to the current releases and announced it on their website. After reading the whole timeline, I'm not sure what else they were supposed to have done so that Core wouldn't be "forced" to announce the vulnerability that OpenBSD publicized on their own site as a "security fix" three days earlier.

Re:Doesn't matter how good a C programmer you are

[Fnordulicious (85996)]

Even the on the Lisp Machines the "kernel" code was implemented with manual memory management. There's a very simple reason for this. How do you implement the memory manager? It's a chicken and egg problem, so the lowest levels always have to do memory management by hand.

Also, it's less efficient to simply use one heap for everything. Instead, an OS kernel written in a language with automatic memory management usually maintains large blocks of memory for the various tasks to work in, like an area for packet construction, an area for I/O buffers, etc. The automatic allocator and GC are told which area to work in, and then create or delete stuff in that area as needed.

So no, it's not generally reasonable to implement the lower levels of any OS with automatic memory management. You're free to try, though.

Re:Moo

[noz (253073)]

See! I told you ipv6 was evil!

You mean ipv666 don't you?

Re:Moo

[BrainInAJar (584756)]

An IP for everyone. Bah!

why, That's Communism!

Wrong...

[Phil John (576633)]

...it's roughly 5.67137278 × 10^28 IP's per person

Or, as a recent Ars article [arstechnica.com] put it (much better than I ever could):

To put this into perspective: there are currently 130 million people born each year. If this number of births remains the same until the sun goes dark in 5 billion years, and all of these people live to be 72 years old, they can all have 53 times the address space of the IPv4 Internet for every second of their lives. Let nobody accuse the IETF of being frugal this time around.

Re:Not in the default install

[dmiller (581)]

No, IPv6 is enabled in the default install, though it does use only link-local addresses by default. This means that the attacker has to be on the same layer-2 network as the victim, but this is still classified as a remote exploit. Theo agreed, and the homepage [openbsd.org] has already been updated.

Time to make a list...

[by Anonymous Coward]

-The Sox won the world series
-The Pope died
-Mac got Intel chips
-The Berlin Wall came down
-I out-lived 4 cats
-Man walked on the moon
-I got laid
and...
-BSD had a hole

Re:Time to make a list...

[bytesex (112972)]

Do the facts that you got laid and that BSD had a hole have anything to do with each other ? Just asking - kids these days...

Re:WHOA WTF

[Curtman (556920)]

You Linux pups seem to think bugs are normal events.

When was the last time a remote root exploit was found in the Linux kernel?

There (probably) was one in November 2004

[tetromino (807969)]

See http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-30-1 [ubuntu.com]; something like 7 vulnerabilities [theaimsgroup.com] were found in the kernel's smbfs driver which could be used for remote DoS and potentially for remote root, at least on some configurations (the Linux community decided to fix the bugs instead of waiting for exploit code to appear). There may have been other remote root exploits since then -- I haven't been keeping track.

Re:WHOA WTF

[Misch (158807)]

It was 81 degrees F in New Jersey [wunderground.com] yesterday, so hell didn't freeze over.

Re:WHOA WTF

[Chris Burke (6130)]

If the team were as security conscious as you claim, they wouldn't have simply dismissed it and would have given the issue more serious consideration.

They didn't simply dismiss it. They fixed the bug. At that point the question of how severe the vulnerability is only affects how critical getting the patch for the bug is. Being security conscious, they don't want to push out a patch without sufficient testing -- possibly causing new vulnerabilities -- unless they have to. When shown that the issue was in fact a remote exploit, they did not dismiss the issue then either, they upgraded the status of the issue and marked the patch as urgent.

All of this is perfectly consistent with security consciousness.

A team which does not take security seriously would have denied that there was a bug at all, would not have the fix, and would have found a way to claim that despite being shown exploit code for a remote vulnerability, it wasn't in fact a big deal. But that isn't what happened.

I've always thought of the BSDs (Net and Open anyway) as a smaller attack vector, nothing inherently more secure. They don't have a monopoly on smart developers and all humans make mistakes.

It is foolish to think that because all humans make mistakes, all humans make the same number and severity of mistakes, and have the same methods of identifying and correcting mistakes. For the same reason, it is foolish to think that because all software has bugs, that all software is equally buggy and the bugs are of equal severity. It is the attention payed to security, the methodologies of writing secure code, that help prevent bugs and make code that is truly inherently more secure.

OpenBSD gets a lot of scrutiny in the security world exactly for the reason that people deploy it because of its security. It may be a smaller attack vector due to market share, and due to it being harder to crack than what your typical army of script kiddies can handle. This does not mean it is not thoroughly poked and prodded by experts, nor does it mean that inherently superior security is an illusion.