Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 03 2017, @10:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-feature dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

A bug in Linux's systemd init system causes root permissions to be given to services associated with invalid usernames, and while this could pose a security risk, exploitation is not an easy task.

A developer who uses the online moniker "mapleray" last week discovered a problem related to systemd unit files, the configuration files used to describe resources and their behavior. Mapleray noticed that a systemd unit file containing an invalid username – one that starts with a digit (e.g. "0day") – will initiate the targeted process with root privileges instead of regular user privileges.

Systemd is designed not to allow usernames that start with a numeric character, but Red Hat, CentOS and other Linux distributions do allow such usernames.

"It's systemd's parsing of the User= parameter that determines the naming doesn't follow a set of conventions, and decides to fall back to its default value, root," explained developer Mattias Geniar.

While this sounds like it could be leveraged to obtain root privileges on any Linux installation using systemd, exploiting the bug in an attack is not an easy task. Geniar pointed out that the attacker needs root privileges in the first place to edit the systemd unit file and use it.

[...] Systemd developers have classified this issue as "not-a-bug" and they apparently don't plan on fixing it. Linux users are divided on the matter – some believe this is a vulnerability that could pose a serious security risk, while others agree that a fix is not necessary.

See, this is why we can't have nice init systems.

Source: http://www.securityweek.com/linux-systemd-gives-root-privileges-invalid-usernames


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 04 2017, @07:26AM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 04 2017, @07:26AM (#534710) Homepage Journal

    Mmmm. That's scary to even think about. Your Windows user is likely to import DLL files for use as libraries. And, Microsoft would probably let him get away with it because embrace, extend, extinguish. Never mind that DLL's wreck anything or everything in existing libraries.

    --
    "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 04 2017, @07:53AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 04 2017, @07:53AM (#534719) Journal

    A DLL is the Windows equivalent of a .so and in theory should be no more or less harmful all else being equal. We're long past "DLL Hell" aren't we? Now the problem is what's *in* the .dll files...this Linux Subsystem for Windows isn't even a solution looking for a problem, it's a shambling undead mess given an assassination mission.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...