Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-26 Thread Jim Cheetham
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Volker Kuhlmann list0...@paradise.net.nz wrote: Anything your router exposes to the Internet is a valid attack surface. You are at the whim of the router's firmware, too often proven to be insecure and non-patchable (vendors don't give a toss). Just because

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Steve Holdoway
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 10:01 +1200, Derek Smithies wrote: Chris, thankyou for stating what can be achieved with minimal effort.. So - is my ADSL box exploitable - which has linux inside it? presumably not - my ADSL box refuses html and ssh login access from the wild. Won't your ADSL

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Chris Hellyar
Another gotcha to note, which I've picked up from this one because I look after a lot of cloud stuff these days.. Rackspace repo mirrors are lagging behind, AWS ones are OK for Centos and RH and Debian but Ubuntu not so much. linode were quick with the first one but this latest is not there

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Derek Smithies
Hi, thanks Chris for the explanation. That does help. Cheers, Derek. On 26/09/14 10:36, Chris Hellyar wrote: Per what Steve said... Bash would be pretty uncommon on embedded devices, they tend to use busybox. The current published/known exploit/vector from this is via apache, with cgi

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Volker Kuhlmann
On Fri 26 Sep 2014 10:01:52 NZST +1200, Derek Smithies wrote: So - is my ADSL box exploitable - which has linux inside it? presumably not - my ADSL box refuses html and ssh login access from the wild. Oops. Presumably yes. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/24/bash_shell_vuln/ Robert

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Derek Smithies
Jim, You have me here. You wrote:: Beware of rogue DHCP responses on your local networks, too - most Linux runs the shell as part of dhclient. https://www.trustedsec.com/september-2014/shellshock-dhcp-rce-proof-concept/ The proof of concept above seems a little strange. The person running

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Chris Hellyar
On 26/09/14 11:22, Steve Holdoway wrote: so... a2dismod cgi on your deb/ubuntu boxes with apache, and whatever the equiv. is on RH, can't think of it for the mo.. That will fix that vector. Or just upgrade to nginx... well, there is that... :-) I was a bit resistant but I'm warming to it.

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Steve Holdoway
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 11:53 +1200, Chris Hellyar wrote: On 26/09/14 11:22, Steve Holdoway wrote: so... a2dismod cgi on your deb/ubuntu boxes with apache, and whatever the equiv. is on RH, can't think of it for the mo.. That will fix that vector. Or just upgrade to nginx... well,

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Kent Fredric
On 26 September 2014 12:06, Chris Hellyar ch...@trash.co.nz wrote: While I don't disagree with the statement that any execution environment can be used to get the result from the flawed version of bash, the remote exploit is via apache/cgi at this stage and exploiting it via php/pearl/python

Re: [Linux-users] shell shock, one more time..

2014-09-25 Thread Chris Hellyar
(Sorry long post. :-) Hmmm, You're not wrong, but polluting the environment before the webserver starts or after it's running is a different proposition from injecting into the environment in a single pass with predictable results. What makes the cgi vs shellshock exploit viable is that that