Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 142399 - app-shells/rssh-2.3.0 - access restrictions bypass (CVE-2006-1320)
Summary: app-shells/rssh-2.3.0 - access restrictions bypass (CVE-2006-1320)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Security
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Vulnerabilities (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High minor (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Security
URL:
Whiteboard: B4? [noglsa] jaervosz
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-08-01 03:06 UTC by Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED)
Modified: 2006-08-10 12:30 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-01 03:06:41 UTC
util.c in rssh 2.3.0 in Debian GNU/Linux does not use braces to make a block, which causes a check for CVS to always succeed and allows rsync and rdist to bypass intended access restrictions in rssh.conf.



It's not clear to me why there's the "in Debian" stanza. The problem is not Debian specific. Version 2.3.2 is fine.


These are the problematic loc:

--- rssh-2.3.0/util.c.orig	2005-11-27 09:01:52.000000000 -0800
+++ rssh-2.3.0/util.c	2006-01-06 16:23:04.000000000 -0800
@@ -209,13 +209,14 @@
 		return PATH_SCP;
 	}
 
-	if ( check_command(cl, opts, PATH_CVS, RSSH_ALLOW_CVS) )
+	if ( check_command(cl, opts, PATH_CVS, RSSH_ALLOW_CVS) ){
 		if ( opt_exist(cl, 'e') ){
 			fprintf(stderr, "\ninsecure -e option not allowed.");
 			log_msg("insecure -e option in cvs command line!");
 			return NULL;
 		}
 		return PATH_CVS;
+	}
 
 	if ( check_command(cl, opts, PATH_RDIST, RSSH_ALLOW_RDIST) ){
 		/* filter -P option */
Comment 1 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-01 07:10:01 UTC
Mike please advise.
Comment 2 Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-01 17:37:49 UTC
Interesting that you mark this as minor, Sune. I'd say it's not a light issue and the corresponding Debian bug
Comment 3 Carsten Lohrke (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-01 17:37:49 UTC
Interesting that you mark this as minor, Sune. I'd say it's not a light issue and the corresponding Debian bug¹ is even classified grave.


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=346322
Comment 4 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-02 00:46:53 UTC
I'm not too familiar with rssh and not sure what can actually be accomplished with this access restriction bypass. The upstream Changelog just states:

2.3.1

 - fixed stupid bug that caused rssh not to allow rsync and rdist

Secunia says:

Note: The vulnerability was fixed in version 2.3.0, but it contains a bug in the "check_command_line()" function in util.c, which may cause "/usr/bin/cvs" to be run instead of rsync and rdist.

Carlo, can you elaborate?
Comment 5 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-02 06:36:36 UTC
Just a note : Debian security bugs are all "grave" at a minimum

We range ours from trivial to blocker, that doesn't mean they aren't security issues that need more urgent care than (any?) other bugs, that's why we assign them to a team of annoying bastards that hunt maintainers down. The alternative is to call them all "blocker" and assign them to maintainers directly (which is how Debian handles it).
Comment 6 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2006-08-04 20:16:23 UTC
upstream says this prevents use of rsync/rdist:
Missing brackets in one function prevented the use of rsync and rdist, ...

but there's no reason for 2.3.2 to not go stable ... there's apparently many known bugs in 2.3.0
Comment 7 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-05 00:20:33 UTC
Arches please test and mark 2.3.2 stable.
Comment 8 Andrej Kacian (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-05 00:56:03 UTC
x86 stable
Comment 9 Michael Hanselmann (hansmi) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-05 02:40:07 UTC
Stable on ppc.
Comment 10 Jason Wever (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-06 09:51:18 UTC
Like a SPARC

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH LIKE A SPARC
Comment 11 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-08 04:35:37 UTC
mmm, time to vote


well i think it does not merit a glsa.
Comment 12 Wolf Giesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-08 04:44:34 UTC
I have to abstain. I don't really get the impact.
Comment 13 Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-08 05:11:46 UTC
@comment #11 Bypass of access restrictions :-)

I tend to vote NO as well.
Comment 14 Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-10 12:30:18 UTC
No Debian advisory on this one. Voting no and closing.