Re: Can you really trust a path?

From: routeat_private
Date: Sat Jan 16 1999 - 12:47:20 PST

  • Next message: Jens Hoffmann: "Re: Sendmail 8.8.x/8.9.x bugware"

    [Marco d'Itri wrote]
    |
    | AFAIK no one suggested yet that trusted path implementations like the
    | ones in recent Phrack issues can be trivially broken with perl XS
    | modules. A step by step guide to convert your favourite exploits can be
    | found in perlxstut(1p).
    
        Interpreters of any kind can be used to break TPE.  The article in question
        (http://www.rrdl.net/daemon9/Projects/Phrack/P54-06) discusses this to a
        certain extent.
    
    | Another way to execute your code in a trusted path environment is
    | exploiting the ability of some programs (e.g. BitchX) to link shared
    | objects at run time from a predefined set or even user-supplied ones.
    | libdl looks at $LD_LIBRARY_PATH too, so the user can supply his own
    | directory with a shared object containing arbitrary code.
    
        This is also mentioned in the article, and the suite provides a workaround,
        "ld.so environment protection".
    
        The fact of the matter is that there are numerous ways to break trusted
        path execution.  The major reason for this is that it is a retrofit to
        an existing infrastructure.  TPE is not a panacea by any means, however, it
        does afford the admin protection from typical localhost attacks (especially
        from cut and paste attackers).  It also, to a certain extent, keeps users
        from hacking from your machine.
    
    --
    I live a world of paradox... My willingness to destroy is your chance for
    improvement, my hate is your faith -- my failure is your victory, a victory
    that won't last.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:29:03 PDT