SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes:
A 7-year-old critical remote code execution vulnerability has been discovered in Samba networking software that could allow a remote attacker to take control of an affected Linux and Unix machines.
[...] The newly discovered remote code execution vulnerability (CVE-2017-7494) affects all versions newer than Samba 3.5.0 that was released on March 1, 2010.
"All versions of Samba from 3.5.0 onwards are vulnerable to a remote code execution vulnerability, allowing a malicious client to upload a shared library to a writable share, and then cause the server to load and execute it," Samba wrote in an advisory published Wednesday.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
7-Year-Old Samba Flaw Lets Hackers Access Thousands of Linux PCs Remotely
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I can resist everything except temptation. -Oscar Wilde
(Score: 3, Disagree) by bradley13 on Saturday May 27 2017, @01:28PM (11 children)
In order for this flaw to be exploited, you have to expose your file-sharing port on the Internet, and the share has to be writable. So, sure, it's a flaw. But you also have to be pretty stupid.
According to TFA, apparently nearly half a million people are this stupid... Hmm...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday May 27 2017, @01:39PM (3 children)
"Think about how dumb the average guy is. Then realize that half of everyone else is dumber than that." --Often attributed to George Carlin (???)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 27 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
What is most funny about that quote, is everyone thinks it is funny.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday May 27 2017, @03:16PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @03:21PM
hehehe!
o wait
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 27 2017, @01:55PM (1 child)
Let's put it this way. Some distributions and pre-installed Linux machines have Samba shares enabled by default. I didn't like it when I saw it the first time but thought that open and free software tend to have better order than the microshaft counterpart so it could be alright.
Now my initial misgivings have been confirmed. If the MBA minds hadn't bough into the microshaft shafting of users. We would have way less of this shit.
And it doesn't seem far fetched to think this is related to: New SMB Worm 'EternalRocks' Uses Seven NSA Hacking Tools -- WannaCry Used Just Two [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:15PM
and do these mythical distros with samba shares enabled by default also have the share set up on the public/only interface? If so, then i have to assume that those distros are only supposed to be used inside of a lan. if not, that's hilarious.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:09PM
A lot of major exploits are not caused by users being stupid, they're caused by admins who should know better not taking into account that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, then failing to think about how they can mitigate against the threat that a supposedly insignificant workstation getting compromised presents to more critical systems. If an admin is not assuming that an attacker is potentially going to be launching attacks on servers from within their network, possibly even using network communication channels that are required for the business to actually function, and implementing measures to detect and hopefully prevent that escalation, then they're doing it wrong.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:24PM
No.
You might have a case if it was about people going out of their way to enable that on their desktops, but we're talking NAS devices here. Those are mass-market products. You can't expect from the average user to have the level of knowledge and suspicion as a seasoned Linux sysadmin.
If people want to have access to their files over the Internet, they'll buy a NAS and set it up according to the manual. Any security holes resulting from the default setup are on the manufacturer.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 27 2017, @02:36PM (1 child)
"the share has to be writable"
Forget the internet sharing - no one with half a mind shares their hard drive to the intertubes. No one with a quarter of a mind, FFS.
But, I don't even make shares writable on my own private network. Everyone in the house has their own fricking hard drive. If they want to write stuff and save it, they can save it there. I'm the only person I trust to write on my hard drives. If my wife (who has the most valid claim to any of my property) wants to put a movie on the server, I navigate to her system shares, copy the movie in question, THEN I WRITE IT to my hard drives, from my own desktop. No one writes to my system, but me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday May 27 2017, @05:06PM
Add to your /etc/samba/smb.conf:
Any hint of a problem is gone.
This feature was mostly used by windows machines to provide distribution of windows printer drivers.
But as we all know, just because you can deliver an executable file to samba server doesn't mean you can make it executable on that server. The biggest risk here is that it will allow the propagation of that executable to other windows machines. But of course, who would attack a samba server if there were windows machines around to attack?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday May 27 2017, @08:18PM
No you don't. There are other scenarios where this would be bad.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk