On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:58:56AM -0500, Crow, Owen wrote:
> The description contains a solution that only fixes the problem until the
> system is rebooted.  I just made it more generic:

You prompted me to finish my recommended patch for the same problem.  It
provides additional information on the patching, as a patch is available for
Solaris 8 (only).


--- cachefsd_overflow.nasl      Thu Oct  2 14:07:33 2003
+++ /tmp/cachefsd_overflow.nasl  Thu Oct  2 14:11:11 2003
@@ -16,20 +16,29 @@
  
  desc["english"] = "
 The cachefsd RPC service is running. 
-Some versions of this server allow an attacker to gain root access
remotely, 
-by consuming the resources of the remote host then sending a specially
formed 
-packet with format strings to this host.
+Multiple vulnerabilities exist in this service.  At least
+one heap overflow vulnerability can be exploited remotely
+to obtain root privileges by sending a long directory and
+cache name request to the service.  A buffer overflow can
+result in root privileges from local users exploiting the
+fscache_setup function with a long mount argument.
 
-Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7 and 8 are vulnerable to this issue. Other operating 
-systems might be affected as well.
+Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6, 7 and 8 are vulnerable to this
+issue. Sun patch 110896-02 is available for Solaris 8.
+Other operating systems might be affected as well.
 
 *** Nessus did not check for this vulnerability, 
 *** so this might be a false positive
 
-Solution : Deactivate this service (there is no patch at this time) by
typing :
-
-            /etc/init.d/cachefs.daemon stop
-
+Solution : Deactivate this service - there is no patch at this time
+           for pre-8 systems
+            /etc/init.d/cachefs.daemon stop
+          AND:
+          Edit /etc/inetd.conf and disable the 100235/rcp service:
+            #100235/1 tli rpc/tcp wait root /usr/lib/fs/cachefsd cachefsd
+          Then kill -HUP the inetd process id.
+          These activities may need to be repeated after every
+          patch installation.
 Risk factor : High";

Reply via email to