[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:18:25 +0000
From: Tim Brown <tmb@...35.com>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Running Java across a privilege boundry
On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:54:48 Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 05:59:41PM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
> > So far no distro has expressed any interest in having this embargoed.
> >
> > Distros list members: please speak up (here or on the distros list, with
> > Tim CC'ed) if you'd like this embargoed.
> >
> > Tim: if until Tuesday no distro says they want this embargoed, please go
> > ahead and make the issue fully public. (On a related note, I hate it
> > when an issue is sort of "semi-public". It's the worst possible case.
> > When this happens, it's a reason to opt for a shorter embargo period, or
> > for none at all indeed.) If an embargo is requested, please make sure
> > there's an exact date and time for the planned public disclosure.
>
> So far no distro has expressed any interest in having this embargoed,
> and no specific coordinated disclosure date has been proposed by anyone.
> Tim, please make the issue public now by posting it in here. Thanks!
Apologies, I was locked in a server room for the last 2-3 weeks without access
to my Internet.
The issue for anyone that was interested was as follows:
> $ objdump -x /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java | grep RPATH
>
> RPATH $ORIGIN/../lib/amd64/jli:bootstrap/jre/lib/amd64/jli:
> $ORIGIN/../lib/amd64:bootstrap/lib/amd64:
> $ORIGIN/../jre/lib/amd64:bootstrap/jre/lib/amd64
> $ mkdir -p bootstrap/jre/lib/amd64/jli
> $ touch bootstrap/jre/lib/amd64/jli/libc.so.6
> $ sudo java
> java: error while loading shared libraries:
> bootstrap/jre/lib/amd64/jli/libc.so.6: file too short
>
> I haven't checked if this is an upstream problem or whether just Debian is
> affected.
>
> Whilst strictly speaking, there is no security boundary offered by Java
> itself, in the case of unsafe RPATH headers on a ELF binary, sudo can do
> nothing to sanitise the environment. Nor indeed could an arbitrary setuid
> which ends up calling Java with additional privileges. (Unlike say PATH
> etc which sudo can quite happily sanitise.)
>
> As such, only fixing the java binary itself will prevent library injection
> into any Java application that is run interactively (or maybe otherwise)
> in such a manner.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Brown
<mailto:tmb@...35.com>
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
