First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 156681
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen <jaervosz@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Flags: Requestee:
 
 
  ()

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 156681 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 156681 blocks:

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)







View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2006-11-29 21:14 0000
RH reports: (name edited)

Kimmo H reported a DoS flaw in D-Bus to the freedesktop.org
bugzilla.  To quote his bug:

        I found a nasty bug from match_rule_equal() that can cause matches
        to be removed from another connections (thanks goes to other guys
        for finding reproducable use case for the bug).

This flaw can cause a local user to disable the the ability of another
process to receive certain messages.  This flaw does not contain any
potential for arbitrary code execution.  Here is a more details description
from Kimmo:

        We don't have the software public yet, but the use case was the
        following.  There are three processes A, B, and C. All of them add
        the same match (same value). A is started first, then B, and lastly
        C. Now, B and C are closed: if B is closed before C, A's match is
        removed; but if C is closed before B, A's match is not removed (no
        buggy behaviour). (B and C call dbus_bus_remove_match on exit.)

I've assigned CVE-2006-6107 to this flaw.  The current embargo date is
2006-12-12 at 14:00 UTC.  The bug was public for a short period of time, so
it's possible a third party is aware of this, but I suspect given the low
severity of the flaw there won't be much attention before a public
announcement.

Here is the proposed patch:

diff -pur 0.61-osso23/bus/signals.c 0.61-osso23.new/bus/signals.c
--- 0.61-osso23/bus/signals.c   2006-11-23 16:46:52.589602192 +0200
+++ 0.61-osso23.new/bus/signals.c   2006-11-23 16:49:28.873843376 +0200
@@ -1067,6 +1067,9 @@ match_rule_equal (BusMatchRule *a,
   if (a->flags != b->flags)
     return FALSE;

+  if (a->matches_go_to != b->matches_go_to)
+    return FALSE;
+
   if ((a->flags & BUS_MATCH_MESSAGE_TYPE) &&
       a->message_type != b->message_type)
     return FALSE;

------- Comment #1 From Matthias Geerdsen 2006-12-12 12:07:30 0000 -------
Are there any news about this one? The embargo was supposed to end earlier
today.

Is 0.62 affected by this, as it is the stable ebuild for all supported arches
but alpha.

CC'ing cardoe as the maintainer

------- Comment #2 From Doug Goldstein 2006-12-12 15:49:46 0000 -------
Yes I know. Yes the release happened today. Yes I just got home from work so I
can address it now. Yes all versions of D-Bus are affected. It's a local denial
of service attack that would have to target specific applications that use
D-Bus.

------- Comment #3 From Doug Goldstein 2006-12-12 16:24:38 0000 -------
committed 1.0.2 which is fixed. Removed previous 1.0.x series. Kept current
stable versions in the tree, however they are vulnerable. 

------- Comment #4 From Doug Goldstein 2006-12-12 17:35:09 0000 -------
Added 0.62-r2 with the security fix backported to it. Just get the arches to
start stablize that version.

------- Comment #5 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2006-12-12 23:10:01 0000 -------
Thx Doug

Arches please test and mark stable. Target keywords are:

dbus-0.62-r2.ebuild:KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 mips ppc ppc64 s390 sh
sparc x86"

------- Comment #6 From Christian Faulhammer 2006-12-13 03:22:15 0000 -------
Test fails, but x86 is stable

------- Comment #7 From Tobias Scherbaum 2006-12-13 04:34:05 0000 -------
ppc stable

------- Comment #8 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2006-12-13 05:32:48 0000 -------
sparc stable.

------- Comment #9 From Michael Cummings (RETIRED) 2006-12-13 06:49:43 0000 -------
amd64 all set

------- Comment #10 From Jeroen Roovers 2006-12-13 08:44:14 0000 -------
Stable for HPPA.

------- Comment #11 From Brent Baude 2006-12-13 08:56:30 0000 -------
ppc64 done

------- Comment #12 From Matt Drew 2006-12-14 05:11:02 0000 -------
*** Bug 158123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #13 From Doug Goldstein 2006-12-14 05:43:37 0000 -------
Looking at the ebuild itself, some more arches have marked it stable. Removing
those arches. Now waiting on alpha and mips... who I've been waiting on for a
while to even stablize 0.62-r1 (maybe 3-4 weeks)

------- Comment #14 From Doug Goldstein 2006-12-17 12:53:15 0000 -------
kloeri took care of alpha.

------- Comment #15 From Raphael Marichez 2006-12-17 15:13:08 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> kloeri took care of alpha.
> 

OK


TTV

i vote no because of the very specific conditions to comply with before
exploiting that low-severity bug.

------- Comment #16 From Wolf Giesen (RETIRED) 2006-12-17 21:35:32 0000 -------
I concur with the low severity, although it does not seem too difficult to
exploit.

------- Comment #17 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2006-12-17 22:21:48 0000 -------
Voting NO and closing. Feel free to reopen if you disagree.

Removing Alpha has they have already marked stable.

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug