Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Bash Bug May Be Worse Than Heartbleed
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
paulvixie
50%
50%
paulvixie,
User Rank: Author
9/26/2014 | 3:26:11 PM
on mac/os-x and redhat and older debian, bash is used as /bin/sh, and this matters
someone here said that this only hurt cgi-bin's written in bash, and that's not always true. if you are on a redhat or apple or older debian system where bash is used as /bin/sh, then libc will be using bash to execute commands, and this includes apache's CGI data path. libc popen(), system(), execlp(), and execvp() are defined to use the /bin/sh interface. so you could be using bash for a lot of things you didn't know about -- certainly that's how the shellshock day 1 botnet was created, not by finding CGI scripts written in bash, but by finding Apache servers where /bin/sh is bash. of which there are millions.
securityaffairs
50%
50%
securityaffairs,
User Rank: Ninja
9/26/2014 | 9:28:33 AM
It's critical for IoT devices
The impact of the Bash Bug flaw is critical and worse than Heartbleed because it is quite easy exploitable.

Another element to consider is that while servers are easy to patch, there is a serious impact for those it (Internet of Things) devices are poorly configured and that is not possible to update in a short time for various reasons.

 
TalKlein
50%
50%
TalKlein,
User Rank: Author
9/25/2014 | 6:25:19 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
Totally agree WRT "Defcon 1".. Especially since there's very little most consumers can do other than wait for vendors to make patches available. It's like not I can tell my mom to go patch bash on her home router :)

I don't know how we solve for that problem. I wish the press would do a better job of communicating risk to the public. But we've become a culture of rubberneckers.
AnonymousMan
50%
50%
AnonymousMan,
User Rank: Moderator
9/25/2014 | 5:55:05 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
I'm not even arguing that it's not a BFD.  I just think the press needs to come down from defcon 1.  Yes, there are very specific situations where this could matter a lot.  CGI programs that invoke the shell are clearly the biggest concern. GIT and other source code management platforms (any shared Linux environment really) may very well be another, because of the SSH forcecommand issue.  However, attacker still needs a login and still needs to escalate privs.  One would hope that steps are taken in a shared Linux environment to secure against this specific risk.

 

 
TalKlein
50%
50%
TalKlein,
User Rank: Author
9/25/2014 | 5:26:20 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
Again, if I can do a remote code execution by using something as simple as git, I don't see why you don't see that as a BFD. IMO Heartbleed was a listening/impersonation problem, whereas the ramifications of this are much greater in the context of its ease of exploitation. I have zero skin in this game FUD-wise. If you don't take my word for it, take CERT's
AnonymousMan
50%
50%
AnonymousMan,
User Rank: Moderator
9/25/2014 | 5:22:33 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
So you pointed out an exploit that looks for vulnerable CGI programs and then fetches a kernel exploit.  It's still looking for vulnerable CGI programs. I'm not trying to suggest this isn't an important vulnerability, but let's stop with the FUD. The number of network calls that result in invocation of a bash shell is relatively limited. Comparing this to Heartbleed at this point and using language like the press has been is just not constructive. CNN..."At its most basic, it lets someone hack every device in your house, business or government building".  Geez.  I think the most significant vector could be DHCP, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that the typical devices that might get DHCP from an untrusted server are impacted (e.g. Android, iOS, etc).
TalKlein
50%
50%
TalKlein,
User Rank: Author
9/25/2014 | 4:38:52 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
Here's the simple fact, folks: Remote code execution is pretty much the most dangerous class of vulnerability you're going to find. It's not just about CGI, I've been able to do some gnarly stuff with git in my lab, and others have done much much worse
aws0513
50%
50%
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2014 | 3:37:02 PM
Re: Worse than heartbleed?
Although I agree the risk factor compared to Heartbleed may not be the same, the broad distribution of systems that have GNU BASH as part of the platform is likely quite broad.
Even if the systems are not currently calling BASH via cgi-bin or any other known vulnerable configuration, every effort should be made to ensure that the vulnerability cannot become a problem in the future.
It is also likely that the dust isn't completely settled in this regard.  Vendors may still be assessing impact on their product platforms and/or developing patches.  I expect several patches for some of our appliance devices that utilize *nix platforms.
AnonymousMan
50%
50%
AnonymousMan,
User Rank: Moderator
9/25/2014 | 2:38:54 PM
Worse than heartbleed?
That's a huge stretch. Can someone name a few significant products that are anonymously and remotely exploitable without a patch? You know, like Juniper VPN, etc? Apache is NOT vulnerable, some CGI scripts MIGHT be, but only if they call the shell.
aws0513
50%
50%
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2014 | 2:28:39 PM
It's been a day
So...  Mentioned this vulnerability to a non-technical manager when I passed him in the hall.
He said "Bash? Is that some kind of video game?"
My response "I wish it were that simple."

:-)


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Cybersecurity Bounces Back, but Talent Still Absent
Simone Petrella, Chief Executive Officer, CyberVista,  9/16/2020
Meet the Computer Scientist Who Helped Push for Paper Ballots
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Latest Comment: Exactly
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6564
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in permissions in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of a permission dialog via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6565
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6566
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in media in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6567
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in command line handling in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6568
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in intent handling in Google Chrome on Android prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.