Two releases since the IDR was applied on Friday.

[email protected]:~$ pkg list -af bash
NAME (PUBLISHER)                                  VERSION                    IFO
shell/bash                                        4.1.11-0.175.2.2.0.8.0     ---
shell/bash                                        4.1.11-0.175.2.2.0.7.0     ---
shell/bash                                        
4.1.11-0.175.2.0.0.42.1.1399.1 i--
shell/bash                                        4.1.11-0.175.2.0.0.42.1    ---






Ian McGinley
Application Technology
Consumer and Digital - Online
03 8647 2433
0457 724 419


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hogard [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2014 10:21 PM
To: Tim Hogard
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [msosug] bash vulnerability in Solaris?.

pkg update sent a 2nd version of bash just moments ago.


On my t5120 toybox running 11.2:

# cp /usr/bin/bash /tmp
# pkg update
# ls -l /usr/bin/bash /tmp/bash
-r-xr-xr-x   1 root     root     1245760 Sep 27 22:14 /tmp/bash
-r-xr-xr-x   1 root     bin      1245752 Sep 27 22:15 /usr/bin/bash
# md5sum /usr/bin/bash /tmp/bash
a08d7d8081e345081cb2c72c0c5f8ff7  /usr/bin/bash
fce382e2c5794e38434d152e811f17d7  /tmp/bash


-tim


On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Tim Hogard wrote:

>
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 8:49 PM, Murray Blakeman wrote:
>
>> Not sure if anyone is interested.  For Solaris 11+.
>>
>> http://www.solarismultimedia.com/?q=node/108
>>
>> May not be good practice but it'll do for the moment.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Murray
>
> A poorly fixed bash was updated yesterday when I did a "pkg update"
>
> I say poorly fixed because the parser appears to bail out when it sees 
> anything funny rather than doing the proper thing which is to parse 
> correctly and process to the proper syntax error.  The result is 
> someone will find a way to bypass this fix.  I think this fix came 
> from the bash team.
>
> -tim
>
>
>>
>> On 26/09/2014 09:43, McGinley, Ian R wrote:
>>> Solaris 10 SPARC
>>>
>>> PRE Install of IDR
>>> $ env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
>>> vulnerable
>>> this is a test
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> POST INSTALL of IDR (no logout and no reboot)
>>>
>>> root@ccssapprfvs001[DHS-Stage1]# env X='() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo 
>>> echo vuln"; [[ "$(cat echo)" == "vuln" ]] && echo "still vulnerable 
>>> "
>>> bash: X: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token `='
>>> bash: X: line 1: `'
>>> bash: error importing function definition for `X'
>>> echo vuln
>>> cat: cannot open echo
>>> root@ccssapprfvs001[DHS-Stage1]# env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable'
>>> bash -c "echo this is a test"
>>> bash: warning: x: ignoring function definition attempt
>>> bash: error importing function definition for `x'
>>> this is a test
>>>
>>> Ian McGinley
>>> Application Technology
>>> Consumer and Digital - Online
>>> 03 8647 2433
>>> 0457 724 419
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andre van Eyssen [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Friday, 26 September 2014 9:44 AM
>>> To: McGinley, Ian R
>>> Cc: Boyd Adamson; Andrew Watkins; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [msosug] bash vulnerability in Solaris?.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian -- you're doing a great job of keeping the list updated. For the 
>>> benefit of the subscriber base, can you update the list as patches 
>>> roll in?
>>>
>>> McGinley, Ian R wrote:
>>>> Current info i've got:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IDR's are in test for
>>>>
>>>> Solaris 11.2 -> 11.2 SRU 2.5
>>>>
>>>> Solaris 11.1 -> Solaris 11.1 SRU 12.5
>>>>
>>>> Solaris 11.1 SRU 13.6 -> Solaris 11.1 SRU 21.4.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Solaris 10 (with dependency on 12654{6..7}-05 already in place)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Solaris 9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And Solaris 8 coming soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian McGinley
>>>>
>>>> Application Technology
>>>>
>>>> Consumer and Digital - Online
>>>>
>>>> 03 8647 2433
>>>>
>>>> 0457 724 419
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Boyd Adamson [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 25 September 2014 6:55 PM
>>>> *To:* Andrew Watkins
>>>> *Cc:* [email protected]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [msosug] bash vulnerability in Solaris?.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will indeed be interesting to see what they do. Another aspect is 
>>>> that in the past Solaris 11 package  updates have only ever been 
>>>> bundled into SRUs that also included reboot-requiring packages. If 
>>>> they continue this practice then we will be rebooting for an update 
>>>> that really only requires replacing a single binary, while our 
>>>> Linux systems are already upgraded without outage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25 Sep 2014, at 6:27 pm, Andrew Watkins <[email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Yes, we could all compile and install a new version or remove 
>>>> bash,
>>>>    but  it will be interesting to see how Oracle handle it for all 
>>>> the
>>>>    Solaris 11 releases. Currently they only release patches for the
>>>>    latest version 11.2, so that is why I am interested in what they
>>>>    will do for this one.
>>>>
>>>>    What happens in the Zero Day Security bug was in the Solaris
>>>> 11.0
>>>>    kernel, so there is no way of you fixing it? Will they only 
>>>> release
>>>>    a patch for 11.2 or will they back port?
>>>>
>>>>    Happy fixing.
>>>>
>>>>    Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    On 25/09/2014 09:18, Ben Couldrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        We should all be running zsh anyway... (sorry Boyd, had to get 
>>>> in
>>>>        before you did)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            On 25 Sep 2014, at 6:13 pm, Andrew Watkins
>>>>            <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            It will be interesting if Oracle release a bash patch 
>>>> for
>>>>            all Solaris 11 versions (11, 11.1 and 11.2).
>>>>            Or will the force everyone to go to Solaris 11.2 SRU 
>>>> latest
>>>>
>>>>            Andrew
>>>>
>>>>            On 25/09/2014 08:21, McGinley, Ian R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                Log an SR asking for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                We've got one in the system for tracking internal 
>>>> change
>>>>                management purposes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                In the mean time if it's super dangerous for you, 
>>>> then
>>>>                pkgrm SUNWbash, or at least chmod 000 /bin/bash
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                Ian McGinley
>>>>
>>>>                Application Technology
>>>>
>>>>                Consumer and Digital - Online
>>>>
>>>>                03 8647 2433
>>>>
>>>>                0457 724 419
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                *From:*Tony Payne [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>                *Sent:* Thursday, 25 September 2014 11:39 AM
>>>>                *To:* msosug
>>>>                *Subject:* [msosug] bash vulnerability in Solaris?.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                I'm sure you've all heard about the bash 
>>>> vulnerability
>>>>                where: *"specially-crafted environment variables can 
>>>> be
>>>>                used to inject shell commands" unearthed by Stephane
>>>>                Chazelas very recently?.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                Many linux flavors have already released patches and
>>>>                according to the following test (see in full at:
>>>>                https://access.redhat.com/articles/1200223)
>>>> Solaris 10
>>>>                at least appears to be vulnerable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                =========================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                    Diagnostic Steps
>>>>
>>>>                To test if your version of Bash is vulnerable to 
>>>> this
>>>>                issue, run the following command:
>>>>
>>>>                $ env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable'  bash -c "echo 
>>>> this is a test"
>>>>
>>>>                If the output of the above command looks as follows:
>>>>
>>>>                vulnerable
>>>>
>>>>                this is a test
>>>>
>>>>                you are using a vulnerable version of Bash. The 
>>>> patch
>>>>                used to fix this issue ensures that no code is 
>>>> allowed
>>>>                after the end of a Bash function. Thus, if you run 
>>>> the
>>>>                above example with the patched version of Bash, you
>>>>                should get an output similar to:
>>>>
>>>>                $ env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable'  bash -c "echo 
>>>> this is a test"
>>>>
>>>>                bash: warning: x: ignoring function definition 
>>>> attempt
>>>>
>>>>                bash: error importing function definition for `x'
>>>>
>>>>                this is a test
>>>>
>>>>                =========================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                Does anyone know if there is, or is planned, a patch 
>>>> for
>>>>                Solaris' bash implementation?.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                *
>>>>                
>>>> https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-6271?sc_cid=7016000
>>>> 0000e8eaAAA&
>>>>
>>>> <https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-6271?sc_cid=701600
>>>> 000
>>>> 00e8eaAAA&>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                --
>>>>                Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>                Tony.
>>>>                                            \|/ ____ \|/
>>>>                                             @~/ ,. \~@
>>>>                                            /_( \__/ )_\
>>>>
>>>> +------------------------------
>>>> \__U_/---------------------------------
>>>> -+
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>                msosug mailing list
>>>>
>>>>                [email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>                http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            --
>>>>
>>>>            Andrew Watkins * Birkbeck, University of London * 
>>>> Computer Science *
>>>>
>>>>            * UKOUG Solaris SIG Co-Chair *
>>>>
>>>>            http://notallmicrosoft.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>            msosug mailing list
>>>>            [email protected] 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>            http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --
>>>>
>>>>    Andrew Watkins * Birkbeck, University of London * Computer 
>>>> Science
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>    * UKOUG Solaris SIG Co-Chair *
>>>>
>>>>    http://notallmicrosoft.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>    msosug mailing list
>>>>    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>    http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> msosug mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andre van Eyssen
>>> mail: [email protected]            (alt: [email protected])
>>> purplecow.org: UNIX for the masses   http://www2.purplecow.org
>>> purplecow.org: PCOWpix               http://pix.purplecow.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> msosug mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> msosug mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> msosug mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug
>


_______________________________________________
msosug mailing list
[email protected]
http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug

_______________________________________________
msosug mailing list
[email protected]
http://mexico.purplecow.org/m/listinfo/msosug

Reply via email to