Re: Bug#559802: CVE-2009-3736 local privilege escalation
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:23:41 pm Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:13:06 +1100, Steffen Joeris wrote:
> > > > > The following CVE (Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures) id was
> > > > > published for libtool. I have determined that this package embeds
> > > > > a vulnerable copy of the libtool source code. However, since this
> > > > > is a mass bug filing (due to so many packages embedding libtool), I
> > > > > have not had time to determine whether the vulnerable code is
> > > > > actually present in any of the binary packages. Please determine
> > > > > whether this is the case. If the package is not affected, please
> > > > > feel free to close the bug with a message containing the details of
> > > > > what you did to check.
> > > > >
> > > > > CVE-2009-3736:
> > > > > | ltdl.c in libltdl in GNU Libtool 1.5.x, and 2.2.6 before 2.2.6b,
> > > > > | attempts to open a .la file in the current working directory,
> > > > > | which allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse
> > > > > | file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that this problem also affects etch and lenny, so if your
> > > > > package is affected, please coordinate with the security team to
> > > > > release the DSA for the affected packages.
> > Is this different to all these python modules that include the working
> > directory? When I had a quick look it smelled like these once, in which
> > case none of the packages probably deserves a DSA and they can all be
> > fixed through s-p-u/o-s-p-u (and can be urgency 'slow'), but I thought
> > I'd ask first in case I misunderstood the issue.
> So, as i interpret the issue, the difference here is that libtool will
> load any and all .la and .a file available on the LD_LOAD_LIBRARY path;
> whereas python will load modules in the current directory only if they
> are specifically called from the script.
> I have just recently realized that LD_LOAD_LIBRARY has a relatively
> safe default that does not include the current working directory.
> Given this fact, I believe that the impact is rather limited (only
> users that have modified that LD_LOAD_LIBRARY path are affected; and
> i'm sure there are those who have done this, but it is a minor subset
> of all debian users).
> Hence, I think that for any package embedding libtool, updates should
> be pushed in stable-proposed-updates, rather than DSAs. As for libtool
> itself, it may still make sense to issue a DSA.
> If there is concurrence on this assessment, I will send a message along
> these lines to all of the bugs that I submitted.
Please do so, if the packages have an embedded code copy and do not link