second opinion regarding mod-ssl BO...

From: Ed Moyle (emoyleat_private)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 08:28:58 PST

  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private: "Re: bug in procmail (ver 3.14 maybe others?)"

    Howdy.
    
    I am currently in the process of writing this up, and I'd like a second opinion on exploitability (modssl team fixed w/ Sat's release):
    
    (mod_ssl < 2.8.7) (www.modssl.org)
    
    ssl_util_ssl.h:
    
    > #define SSL_SESSION_MAX_DER 1024*10
    
    ssl_scache_dbm.c:
    
    > BOOL ssl_scache_dbm_store(server_rec *s, UCHAR *id, int idlen, time_t expiry, SS
    > L_SESSION *sess) {
    
    <snip>
    
    > UCHAR ucaData[SSL_SESSION_MAX_DER];
    
    <snip>
    
    > ucp = ucaData;
    > nData = i2d_SSL_SESSION(sess, &ucp);
    
    relevant openssl docs (from http://www.openssl.org/docs/ssl/d2i_SSL_SESSION.html):
    
    > When using i2d_SSL_SESSION(), the memory location pointed to by pp must be large enough to hold the
    > binary representation of the session. There is no known limit on the size of the created ASN1 
    > representation, so the necessary amount of space should be obtained by first calling
    > i2d_SSL_SESSION() with pp=NULL, and obtain the size needed, then allocate the memory and call
    > i2d_SSL_SESSION() again. 
    
    I contend that the only way to exploit this is to generate a trusted client cert that has embedded shell code in it (a difficult task at best).  Can anybody out there in the vast wide ether provide other opinions on exploitability scenarios?
    
    -E
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 17:41:02 PST