Mambo Exploit Blocked by SELinux
Resources
SELinux: www.nsa.gov/selinux
Mambo: www.mamboserver.com
Red Hat SELinux Guide: www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide
ComputerWorld Article on the Mambo Worm: www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,108868,00.html?source=x73
Outpost24 Article on the Mambo Worm: www.outpost24.com/ops/delta/FrameIndex.jsp?page=/ops/delta/news/News.jsp%3FXID%3D1157%26XVCLANGUAGEID%3D
F-Secure Worm Report: www.f-secure.com/v-descs/mare_d.shtml
Bugtraq on Mambo Vulnerabilities: archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2006-02/0463.html
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Dictionary: www.cve.mitre.org
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Mambo Issue: www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-3738
“Disk Images under Linux”: www.mega-tokyo.com/osfaq/Disk%20Images%20Under%20Linux
Mambo RPM Packages: dag.wieers.com/packages/mambo
Richard Bullington-McGuire is the Managing Partner of PKR Internet, LLC, a software and systems consulting firm in Arlington, Virginia, specializing in Linux, open source and Java. He also founded The Obscure Organization, a nonprofit organization that promotes creativity and community through technology. He has been a Linux sysadmin since 1994. You can reach him at rbulling@pkrinternet.com.
Today’s modular x86 servers are compute-centric, designed as a least common denominator to support a wide range of IT workloads. Those generic, virtualized IT workloads have much different resource optimization requirements than hyperscale and cloud applications. They have resulted in a “one size fits all” enterprise IT architecture that is not optimized for a specific set of IT workloads, and especially not emerging hyperscale workloads, such as web applications, big data, and object storage. In this report, you will learn how shifting the focus from traditional compute-centric IT architectures to an innovative disaggregated fabric-based architecture can optimize and scale your data center.
Sponsored by AMD
Built-in forensics, incident response, and security with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Every security policy provides guidance and requirements for ensuring adequate protection of information and data, as well as high-level technical and administrative security requirements for a system in a given environment. Traditionally, providing security for a system focuses on the confidentiality of the information on it. However, protecting the data integrity and system and data availability is just as important. For example, when processing United States intelligence information, there are three attributes that require protection: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Learn more about catching the bad guy in this free white paper.
Sponsored by DLT Solutions
| Making Linux and Android Get Along (It's Not as Hard as It Sounds) | May 16, 2013 |
| Drupal Is a Framework: Why Everyone Needs to Understand This | May 15, 2013 |
| Home, My Backup Data Center | May 13, 2013 |
| Non-Linux FOSS: Seashore | May 10, 2013 |
| Trying to Tame the Tablet | May 08, 2013 |
| Dart: a New Web Programming Experience | May 07, 2013 |
- RSS Feeds
- New Products
- Making Linux and Android Get Along (It's Not as Hard as It Sounds)
- A Topic for Discussion - Open Source Feature-Richness?
- Drupal Is a Framework: Why Everyone Needs to Understand This
- Home, My Backup Data Center
- New Products
- Paranoid Penguin - Building a Secure Squid Web Proxy, Part IV
- Developer Poll
- Trying to Tame the Tablet
- Looking Good
42 min 12 sec ago - Hey God - You may not be
4 hours 55 min ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
7 hours 28 min ago - Drupal is an Awesome CMS and a Crappy development framework
12 hours 7 min ago - IT industry leaders
14 hours 30 min ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 7 hours ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 9 hours ago - Reply to comment | Linux Journal
1 day 11 hours ago - great post
1 day 11 hours ago - Google Docs
1 day 12 hours ago
Free Webinar: Linux Backup and Recovery
Most companies incorporate backup procedures for critical data, which can be restored quickly if a loss occurs. However, fewer companies are prepared for catastrophic system failures, in which they lose all data, the entire operating system, applications, settings, patches and more, reducing their system(s) to “bare metal.” After all, before data can be restored to a system, there must be a system to restore it to.
In this one hour webinar, learn how to enhance your existing backup strategies for better disaster recovery preparedness using Storix System Backup Administrator (SBAdmin), a highly flexible bare-metal recovery solution for UNIX and Linux systems.




Comments
Titanic movie rendered with Linux
bosch servisi, bosch servis
..
Thanks..
radyo
thank you very good
An alternate defense against this attack
Kyle Wilson recently wrote me regarding this article, and gave me permission to share his remarks with Linux Journal readers:
________________________________________________________
Richard,
Hi. I just finished reading your article about SELinux in this month's Linux Journal. I enjoyed it very much. I thought I'd share a tip with you which I use to protect my internet facing servers. I always edit my fstab file to include the nosuid and noexec mount options for my tmp file system. In the case of the Mambo exploit which you wrote about, having the noexec mount option on /tmp would have also prevented the exploit by preventing the execution of the cback binary which was placed in your /tmp file system. Here's the description of the options from the mount man page:
noexec - Do not allow execution of any binaries on the mounted file system. This option might be useful for a server that has file systems containing binaries for architectures other than its own.
nosuid - Do not allow set-user-identifier or set-group-identifier bits to take effect. (This seems safe, but is in fact rather unsafe if you have suidperl(1) installed.)
Kyle
________________________________________________________
Kyle has some good points about protecting filesystems using mount options. That is a solid and time-honored way of helping to secure a system, to be sure. I've seen some systems that have many filesystem mount points that are locked down with noexec and nosuid options.
Many systems today (including the one I wrote about) only have two file systems by default, that is a
bootand/filesystems. This system was one of those. Locking down/tmplike that would also have protected from this specific attack, had SELinux not been activated:# for /etc/fstab:
none /tmp tmpfs nosuid,noexec,rw,size=512m 0 0
However, other points of vulnerability also exist, such as
/dev/shm,/var/tmp, and really, any writable file on your system. To be thorough about using nosuid and noexec options, you would need to ensure that these directories are also protected with these options. That is easy enough for/dev/shm, but not so easy for/var/tmpunless you dedicate a disk partition to it, or do funny tricks such as mounting a file on/varwith the loop device and mounting that on/var/tmp. Even doing that is not proof against a determined attacker, as this shell code snippet illustrates:# Try this out on your system to see how wide-open you could still be
echo "World-writable directories:"
find / -type d -perm +0002
echo "World-witable files:"
find / -type f -perm +0002
One of the nice things about the Red Hat / Fedora SELinux targeted policies is that it stops attacks on pretty much all of these locations with a default-deny rule.
Correction: sentence below Listing 4
The sentence below Listing 4 should read:
Lines showing further attacks similar to the trace on targetbox versus Mambo, xmlrpc.php, drupal and phpgroupware also appeared in this grep.