SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars reports that a new bug has been found in GNU Bash allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by setting the process trailing strings after function definitions in the values of environment variables.
This bug is reported to be present in RHEL (ver 4 through 7), Fedora, CentOS (ver 5 through 7), Ubuntu (ver 10.04 LTS, 12.04 LTS, and 14.04 LTS), Debian, and even OS X Mavericks.
This bug is exploitable through Apache servers with mod_cgi and mod_cgid loaded, OpenSSH, malicious DHCP servers in a compromised wireless access point through dhclient, as well as the CUPS printing system.
The Ars also includes a simple single liner that will test your setup for the newly found discovery:
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
A vulnerable system will output the following:
vulnerable
this is a test
While a patched or unaffected system outputs:
bash: warning: x: ignoring function definition attempt
bash: error importing function definition for `x'
this is a test
A patch is already out, so administrators are advised to update Bash.
Editor's Update: Security Engineer Tavis Ormandy has said "The bash patch seems incomplete to me, function parsing is still brittle".
$ env X='() { (a)=>\' sh -c "echo date"; cat echo
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @02:13AM
Wrong-o, my dear friend. Bash is mature software. Systemd is young, immature software. If Bash can suffer from defects like this, then so can Systemd. We are more likely to find a problem in Systemd because it hasn't been checked as extensively as Bash has been. That earlier commenter is right: this is a dangerous situation and we all should be very worried!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @02:18AM
In that case, you should be worried to turn on your computer at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @02:24AM
I was so worried that I installed OpenBSD earlier today. I'm done with Linux. I'm done with the risk of systemd. I'm done with bash. I'm only using OpenBSD from now on, because I value my security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @03:29AM
if you are unable to use linux without systemd, i pity you
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @03:34AM
I'm about to switch to FreeBSD, too. I don't want to install Debian on my new system only to find out a couple of months from now that an upgrade will unexpectedly install systemd and my system will be busted. Even the risk of systemd eventually getting installed is just too great. At least I know that the BSD devs won't be stupid enough to adopt it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @06:54AM
Oh yeah? Well I just installed M$ DOS 1.0 and it's WONDERFUL!!111
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @11:48AM
At least it doesn't include systemd. That makes it better than Fedora.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @01:38PM
Really? It can read your SATA HDD? It can read your USB sticks? Do you even have a floppy disk drive to boot from? (Are 3.5" floppy disk drives actually supported by MS DOS 1.0, or do you need a 5.25" one?)
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday September 25 2014, @01:53PM
They look the same to a host.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday September 25 2014, @02:38PM
Because I'm sure dash or csh or zsh or whatever is so much more secure and well-written than bash...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 25 2014, @06:59PM
How do I know this with the certainty that I do? Because the rate of bugs per line of code is remarkably constant, and there's more code in bash, so likely more bugs.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves