Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soaplite] Re: Preventing package name traversal attacks

Expand Messages
  • Paul Kulchenko
    Hi, Ilya! Yes, this patch may work and thanks for bringing this up. ... I m offline since Saturday and will have only occasional online access till the end of
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 9 11:38 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Ilya!

      Yes, this patch may work and thanks for bringing this up.

      > I've sent Paul private email with source code of exploit I've wrote
      > but I haven't got any response yet.
      I'm offline since Saturday and will have only occasional online
      access till the end of this week. I wasn't aware about the
      possibility of using phrack's exploit in such way, yet it seems like
      it shouldn't work with -T option used on server side. Unfortunately
      -T option doesn't stop you from using $object->$method() even if
      $method string is tainted, which allows accessing already loaded
      modules.

      To disable it on server side you may use on_action handler:

      ->on_action(sub { die "Access denied\n" if $_[2] =~ /:|'/ })

      There is also patch that adds checking of method name against methods
      and classes allowed in dispatch_to(). Will go into the next release.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.

      Best wishes, Paul.

      --- Ilya Martynov <ilya@...> wrote:
      > >>>>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:24:48 -0000, "theonetowhommyrefers"
      > <theonetowhommyrefers@y..> said:
      >
      > T> There is an article at Use::Perl which discusses a serious
      > security
      > T> hole in SOAP::Lite -
      > T> http://use.perl.org/articles/02/04/09/000212.shtml?tid=5
      >
      > T> This article is based on another article at Phrack:
      > T> http://www.phrack.com/show.php?p=58&a=9
      >
      > >> From what I can tell the security hole is that autodispatch
      > allows
      > T> direct access to fully qualified package names and thus
      > arbitrary
      > T> commands can be executed on the remote machine.
      >
      > T> How can we stop such attacks?
      >
      > I've sent Paul private email with source code of exploit I've wrote
      > but I haven't got any response yet.
      >
      > For now you may try to use this patch (diff against latest
      > SOAP::Lite). It is 'unofficial', I haven't tested it too much but
      > it
      > does seem to protect against attacks which use fully qualified
      > package
      > names. It least it seems to stop my exploit.
      >
      > Of course there is NO WARRANTY that it does fix a problem or that
      > it
      > doesn't cause any damage.
      >
      > --- /home/ilya/tmp/Lite.pm Tue Apr 9 21:27:07 2002
      > +++ /usr/share/perl5/SOAP/Lite.pm Tue Apr 9 21:40:10 2002
      > @@ -2068,6 +2068,11 @@
      > ($method_uri, $method_name) = ($request->namespaceuriof || '',
      > $request->dataof->name)
      > unless $method_name;
      >
      > + # don't allow method names which contain package names
      > + # i.e package::method or package'method (old deprecated syntax)
      > + die "Denied access to method ($method_name)"
      > + if $method_name =~ /[:']/;
      > +
      > $self->on_action->(my $action = $self->action, $method_uri,
      > $method_name);
      >
      > my($class, $static);
      >
      >
      > --
      > Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soaplite-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
      http://taxes.yahoo.com/
    • Ilya Martynov
      ... PK access till the end of this week. I wasn t aware about the PK possibility of using phrack s exploit in such way, yet it seems like PK it shouldn t
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 10 4:17 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> said:

        PK> access till the end of this week. I wasn't aware about the
        PK> possibility of using phrack's exploit in such way, yet it seems like
        PK> it shouldn't work with -T option used on server side. Unfortunately
        PK> -T option doesn't stop you from using $object->$method() even if
        PK> $method string is tainted, which allows accessing already loaded
        PK> modules.

        Well, I've just sent you private email with modified exploit which
        does work even if -T option is used on server side.

        --
        Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
      • Robert Taylor
        Thanks, Paul and Ilya, for addressing this serious issue. ... This server side check works for me. __________________________________________________ Do You
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 10 7:13 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Paul and Ilya, for addressing this serious
          issue.

          --- Paul Kulchenko <paulclinger@...> wrote:
          > Hi, Ilya!
          > ...
          >
          > To disable it on server side you may use on_action
          > handler:
          >
          > ->on_action(sub { die "Access denied\n" if $_[2]
          > =~ /:|'/ })

          This server side check works for me.




          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/
        • give_me_a_donut
          I have access to two versions of SOAP::Lite, one is 0.46 and one is 0.52. I have found 0.52 to be vulnerable to the phrack exploit, yet 0.46 seems to perform
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 10 7:19 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I have access to two versions of SOAP::Lite, one is 0.46 and one is
            0.52. I have found 0.52 to be vulnerable to the phrack exploit, yet
            0.46 seems to perform some type of validation and hence is not
            affected by the exact problem. This is quite a good thing, as last
            time I checked ActiveState was still shipping 0.46 with their
            distribution and making no later version available via PPM.

            When I try the exploit on a SOAP::Lite 0.46 server, I recieve the
            following fault message in reply ( dumped via Data::Dumper's
            Dumper($response->fault) )

            'faultcode' => 'SOAP-ENV:Client',
            'detail' => 'SOAPAction shall match \'uri#method\' if present',
            'faultstring' => 'Bad SOAPAction',
            'faultactor' => 'http://hostname:port/'

            If anyone has further information on this, or has seen a working
            exploit on this version, please let me know.

            Regards,
            Michael
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.