[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

(fwd) multiple vendor telnet daemon vulnerability

[Newer systems don't seem to be vulnerable.  To check, run:

       strings `which in.telnetd` | fgrep '$NetKit'

If the response is "netkit-telnet-0.14" or less, please upgrade

-- Raju]

This is an RFC 1153 digest.
(1 message)

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn"
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <bugtraq-return-1029-raju=linux-delhi.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mailing-List: contact bugtraq-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>
List-Post: <mailto:bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Help: <mailto:bugtraq-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-To: mailing list bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: moderator for bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: (qmail 12709 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 22:20:32 -0000
Message-ID: <20010718221510.A16174@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
X-Sender: 520091045308-0001@xxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Sebastian <scut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: multiple vendor telnet daemon vulnerability
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:15:10 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is a short version of the original advisory. Most details about
exploiting this vulnerabilty have been removed after thinking about it.

I do not release it because it makes me happy, and I would like you to plea=
not assume things about the reasons involving this posting. I wish things w=
have worked out better for all of us. I do not want to get that much involv=
into disclosure policies, but I am sure a lot of advocates from both sides =
going to flame me about this one. Please save yourself and me the time, I c=
not care less.

A few days ago some script kiddies have somehow got access to a copy of an
exploit for this vulnerability. I do not know how it happened, but while I
write this dozen of BSD hosts fall victim to clueless attackers. And please,
again, I would like to ask you to not assume and speculate how this might
has happened.
   The copy of the exploit was quite script-kiddie safe and requires no
fiddling. It works out of the box. Please patch fast, or better disable
telnetd at all.

Btw, I do not think a simple patch will do it anyway, there are so many
horrible bugs - also non security related - in telnetd beside this one. Just
send some random junk at telnetd and see it die if you do not believe me.



TESO Security Advisory

Multiple vendor Telnet Daemon vulnerability


    Within most of the current telnet daemons in use today there exist a bu=
    overflow in the telnet option handling. Under certain circumstances it =
    be possible to exploit it to gain root priviledges remotely.

Systems Affected

    System                                  | vulnerable   | exploitable *
    BSDI 4.x default                        |      yes     |       yes
    FreeBSD [2345].x default                |      yes     |       yes
    IRIX 6.5                                |      yes     |        no
    Linux netkit-telnetd < 0.14             |      yes     |        ?
    Linux netkit-telnetd >=3D 0.14            |       no     |
    NetBSD 1.x default                      |      yes     |       yes
    OpenBSD 2.x                             |      yes     |        ?
    OpenBSD current                         |       no     |
    Solaris 2.x sparc                       |      yes     |        ?
    <almost any other vendor's telnetd>     |      yes     |        ?

    * =3D From our analysis and conclusions, which may not be correct or we=
        have overseen things. Do not rely on this.

    Details about the systems can be found below.


    Through sending a specially formed option string to the remote telnet
    daemon a remote attacker might be able to overwrite sensitive informati=
    on the static memory pages. If done properly this may result in arbitra=
    code getting executed on the remote machine under the priviledges the
    telnet daemon runs on, usually root.


    Within every BSD derived telnet daemon under UNIX the telnet options are
    processed by the 'telrcv' function. This function parses the options
    according to the telnet protocol and its internal state. During this
    parsing the results which should be send back to the client are stored
    within the 'netobuf' buffer. This is done without any bounds checking,
    since it is assumed that the reply data is smaller than the buffer size
    (which is BUFSIZ bytes, usually).

    However, using a combination of options, especially the 'AYT' Are You T=
    option, it is possible to append data to the buffer, usually nine bytes
    long. To trigger this response, two bytes in the input buffer are
    necessary. Since this input buffer is BUFSIZ bytes long, you can exceed=
    output buffer by as much as (BUFSIZ / 2) * 9) - BUFSIZ bytes. For the
    common case that BUFSIZ is defined to be 1024, this results in a buffer
    overflow by up to 3584 bytes.  On systems where BUFSIZ is defined to be
    4096, this is an even greater value (14336).

    Due to the limited set of characters an attacker is able to write outsi=
    of the buffer it is difficult - if not impossible on some systems - to
    exploit this buffer overflow. Another hurdle for a possible attacker ma=
y be
    the lack of interesting information to modify after the buffer.

    This buffer overflow should be considered serious nevertheless, since
    experience has shown that even complicated vulnerabilities can be
    exploited by skilled attackers, BIND TSIG and SSH deattack come to mind.

    We have constructed a working exploit for any version of BSDI, NetBSD a=
    FreeBSD. Exploitation on Solaris sparc may be possible but if it is, it=
    very difficult involving lots of arcane tricks. OpenBSD is not as easily
    exploitable as the other BSD's, because they do compile with other
    options by default, changing memory layout.


    The vendors have been notified of the problem at the same time as the
    general public, vendor patches for your telnet daemon that fix the bug =
    show up soon.

    Sometimes a fix might not be trivial and require a lot of changes to the
    source code, due to the insecure nature the 'nfrontp' pointer is handle=
    The best long term solution is to disable the telnet daemon at all, sin=
    there are good and free replacements.


    The bug has been discovered by scut. (It is easy to spot, so I do not
    want to rule out discoveries by other persons)

    The tests and further analysis were done by smiler, lorian, zip and scu=

Contact Information

    The TESO crew can be reached by mailing to teso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Our web page is at http://www.team-teso.net/


    [1] TESO


    This advisory does not claim to be complete or to be usable for any
    purpose. Especially information on the vulnerable systems may be inaccu=
    or wrong. Possibly supplied exploit code is not to be used for malicious
    purposes, but for educational purposes only.

    This advisory is free for open distribution in unmodified form.
    Articles that are based on information from this advisory should include
    link [1].


    Not this time. Not here.


-. scut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -. + http://segfault.net/~scut/ `------------------=
-' segfault.net/~scut/pgp `' 5453 AC95 1E02 FDA7 50D2 A42D 427E 6DEF 745A 8=
`- AFIWC control and information seized. awaiting orders. hi echelon ------=

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org




End of this Digest

Raju Mathur          raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://kandalaya.org/