7 ms·

"Localhost vulnerability" is a meaningless term. It's called a local root exploit. EDIT: Since I got modded down for saying this, try to Google for it. There a

by thras 17y ago

"Localhost vulnerability" is a meaningless term. It's called a local root exploit. EDIT: Since I got modded down for saying this, try to Google for it. There are less than 300 hits for "localhost vulnerability," with this article leading the charge. It's simply a mistake by someone who doesn't know the terminology.

tptacek 17y ago
I'm using the OpenBSD term, since it's what I got started with in the early 90's, when I wrote the OpenBSD advisories. It's not strictly a "root" vulnerability; if you have no SUIDs except for qmail-queue, it's a qmailq vulnerability. I'm guessing you got downmodded because nobody cares, although being wrong couldn't have helped.
- thras 17y ago
  Huh? Sorry, but to quote the advisory: A short time ago a "local root" exploit was posted to the full-disclosure mailing list; You don't know what you're talking about. This exploit appears to give local users root privileges, making it a local root exploit exactly as the security advisory states. The phrase "localhost vulnerability" remains meaningless techno-babble. Localhost refers to a network address and this exploit appears to have nothing to do with that.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    No, you're meaningless techno-babble.
  - davidw 17y ago
    > You don't know what you're talking about. I would bet pretty good money that he does:-)
    - thras 17y ago
      I'm willing to take your bet. He has claimed that "localhost vulnerability" was the term used on the OpenBSD list in the 1990s. Why don't you try to find it there: http://emailthreads.org/list/openbsd-security-announce.en.html http://emailthreads.org/list/openbsd-security-announce.en.ht...
      - tptacek 17y ago
        Ok. I'll officiate. What's the dollar amount? I recommend $100, and that the winner donate the proceeds to their preferred charity. The bet is over when I demonstrate to you that (a) I didn't invent the term "localhost vulnerability", much as I wish I had, and (b) this vulnerability isn't strictly a "root" vulnerability. I'll withhold any further description in the interests of routing money from your bank account to a deserving charity, and I will match any dollar amount that davidw agrees to.
        thras 17y ago
        You mean "root exploit" not "root vulnerability." The second term is again mistaken, although it gets used a lot. Did you even read the exploit code? He's figured out a way to overwrite LD_PRELOAD environment variable for anything SUID. That means that you get to tell the binary to load libraries other than what it planned on loading. And hence run arbitrary code. This has nothing to do with "localhost." If you'd like to give examples of people using "localhost vulnerability" in the past, go right ahead and link to them.
        tptacek 17y ago
        Are you going to accept the bet, like you said you were? If you are, I have no desire to screw a charity out of your money by helping you with this.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        With th best will in the world I suggest you quickly read up who tptacek is :) (hint: a security guy, and pretty damn good one)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- bengtan 17y ago
  I'm not a BSD user, but /bin/ping is SUID on linux. Is it also SUID on BSD?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    First thing you do on any Unix system you run: kill all the SUIDs, and make sudo suid but only executable by group sudoers.
- afed 17y ago
  "localhost" ne "local host"
bumblebird 17y ago
Thanks. When I saw the title I assumed it was a network exploit related to the localhost 127.0.0.1 etc.
- tptacek 17y ago
  And then you clicked through and you were all, like, "dammit, I was hoping to read about a vulnerability that could only be exploited by an attacker who could already run code on the target by using sockets, but it turns out it was really about a vulnerability that could only be exploited by an attacker who could already run code on the target using the environment!", and I am very sorry for misleading you.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    Um chill out. It could have been some weird IP spoofing attack where the host gets confused and thinks a remote connection is actually localhost and grants it some privilege or other. For example maybe you have a ton of services setup to only listen on localhost:port. Maybe there's some exploit that allows connections from outside. That's what the title sounds like to me, which is quite different. anyway.

by thras 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

I'm using the OpenBSD term, since it's what I got started with in the early 90's, when I wrote the OpenBSD advisories. It's not strictly a "root" vulnerability; if you have no SUIDs except for qmail-queue, it's a qmailq vulnerability. I'm guessing you got downmodded because nobody cares, although being wrong couldn't have helped.

thras 17y ago
Huh? Sorry, but to quote the advisory: A short time ago a "local root" exploit was posted to the full-disclosure mailing list; You don't know what you're talking about. This exploit appears to give local users root privileges, making it a local root exploit exactly as the security advisory states. The phrase "localhost vulnerability" remains meaningless techno-babble. Localhost refers to a network address and this exploit appears to have nothing to do with that.
- tptacek 17y ago
  No, you're meaningless techno-babble.
- davidw 17y ago
  > You don't know what you're talking about. I would bet pretty good money that he does:-)
  - thras 17y ago
    I'm willing to take your bet. He has claimed that "localhost vulnerability" was the term used on the OpenBSD list in the 1990s. Why don't you try to find it there: http://emailthreads.org/list/openbsd-security-announce.en.html http://emailthreads.org/list/openbsd-security-announce.en.ht...
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Ok. I'll officiate. What's the dollar amount? I recommend $100, and that the winner donate the proceeds to their preferred charity. The bet is over when I demonstrate to you that (a) I didn't invent the term "localhost vulnerability", much as I wish I had, and (b) this vulnerability isn't strictly a "root" vulnerability. I'll withhold any further description in the interests of routing money from your bank account to a deserving charity, and I will match any dollar amount that davidw agrees to.
      - thras 17y ago
        You mean "root exploit" not "root vulnerability." The second term is again mistaken, although it gets used a lot. Did you even read the exploit code? He's figured out a way to overwrite LD_PRELOAD environment variable for anything SUID. That means that you get to tell the binary to load libraries other than what it planned on loading. And hence run arbitrary code. This has nothing to do with "localhost." If you'd like to give examples of people using "localhost vulnerability" in the past, go right ahead and link to them.
        tptacek 17y ago
        Are you going to accept the bet, like you said you were? If you are, I have no desire to screw a charity out of your money by helping you with this.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      With th best will in the world I suggest you quickly read up who tptacek is :) (hint: a security guy, and pretty damn good one)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
bengtan 17y ago
I'm not a BSD user, but /bin/ping is SUID on linux. Is it also SUID on BSD?
- tptacek 17y ago
  First thing you do on any Unix system you run: kill all the SUIDs, and make sudo suid but only executable by group sudoers.
afed 17y ago
"localhost" ne "local host"

bumblebird 17y ago

Thanks. When I saw the title I assumed it was a network exploit related to the localhost 127.0.0.1 etc.

tptacek 17y ago
And then you clicked through and you were all, like, "dammit, I was hoping to read about a vulnerability that could only be exploited by an attacker who could already run code on the target by using sockets, but it turns out it was really about a vulnerability that could only be exploited by an attacker who could already run code on the target using the environment!", and I am very sorry for misleading you.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  Um chill out. It could have been some weird IP spoofing attack where the host gets confused and thinks a remote connection is actually localhost and grants it some privilege or other. For example maybe you have a ton of services setup to only listen on localhost:port. Maybe there's some exploit that allows connections from outside. That's what the title sounds like to me, which is quite different. anyway.