Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 18 Jun 2018, 17:44
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
BASH exposure expressed as bigger than Heartbleed<SOLUTIONS>
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 5 of 13 [186 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
Author Message
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 2971

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 01:39    Post subject:  

Here is bash 3.0.20 for wary/racy 5.5 that also passes the
Code:
curl https://shellshocker.net/shellshock_test.sh | bash
test.

Please uninstall older versions if you installed it.

A note regarding which version of bash to install.
As mentioned before all bash versions will mostly work. However, newer is not necessarily better Smile . bash-3.x and bash-4.x have some incompatibilities. If your puppy is build with 3.x bash and you install 4.x, will mostly work but some scripts may fail or misbehave.
So check your installed bash version (just type: "bash --version" in terminal) and install the relevant one

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==

Last edited by mavrothal on Thu 02 Oct 2014, 02:03; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
dejan555


Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 2806
Location: Montenegro

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 01:44    Post subject:  

EDIT: See this post for latest version(s)
_________________
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored HERE or HERE

Last edited by dejan555 on Wed 01 Oct 2014, 16:10; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
starhawk

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 5056
Location: Everybody knows this is nowhere...

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 02:23    Post subject:  

Installed bash 4.2.x *.txz for Slackware. NOT A FIX FOR X-SLACKO 2.1 -- it will break your savefile.

I've asked my local guru, user jbruchon (who has posted very little here), to come up with a working version for me. We'll see...

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
dejan555


Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 2806
Location: Montenegro

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 04:08    Post subject: Re: is DASH one answer to this vulnerability?  

gcmartin wrote:
On a comment from a forum member, DASH may not have this vulnerability. Wondering about its compatibility.
  • Can DASH replace BASH by removing BASH and setting a link to DASH along with PATH changes?
  • Is that reasonable or inviting problems?
One other note:
This problem may also exist in embedded systems which use BASH....like your routers, etc. It could explain how some system/networks were breached assuming there are hackers who knew of this area of exposure.



They're certainly not 100% compatible and some scripts that use bash specific features instead external cli apps will have errors, also:

Quote:
Lindh’s NAS ran Bash alternative Dash by default and a tweet from security researcher Dragos Ruiu appeared to back up Lindh’s early research. If derivatives of Bash are also vulnerable to Shellshock, this would widen the number of potential targets massively.

“We should probably not make big a fuss about that just yet, but if it turns out that some old Dash shells are also vulnerable, then consumer appliances will definitely be at risk,” Lindh added.


http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/26/bash-bug-shellshock-richard-stallman

EDIT: Same author they linked to says dash not vulnerable: https://twitter.com/dragosr/status/515571912634687488

The whole thing does seem exagerated by the media, in order to get to bash command line attackers would need to bypass some other security protocols.

_________________
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored HERE or HERE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
OscarTalks


Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Posts: 1772
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 04:47    Post subject:  

cimarron wrote:
NOTE: When I installed either the first or second fix, using ubuntu precise packages for my precise 5.7.1 pup, it seems to have broken Frisbee somewhat.

I was testing Slacko 5.7 with the first slackware patch applied yesterday and did notice that Frisbee seemed dead as a dodo. Other network tools were still OK.

_________________
Oscar in England

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
SFR


Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 1657

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 05:18    Post subject:  

SFR wrote:
@Mick: Dunno why, but Slackware's bash packages render HOME/END keys unusable in terminal (urxvt, LXTerminal, VTE).
The same happened with bash compiled by myself.
A workaround is to append this to /etc/inputrc:
Code:
"\e[1~": beginning-of-line      # Home Key
"\e[4~": end-of-line            # End Key

Greetings!

Another, even more annoying, issue with Slackware's bash binary: when I am typing a long line, that exceeds the right margin, it no longer wraps to the next line, but instead some maddening, horizontal scroll mode turns on.
It's impossible to highlight & copy such over-extended line!

Ok, it took me some time and nerves, but long story short: after I compiled bash with '--with-curses' (also literally) both issues are gone.
All patches applied, pkg for Slacko 32bit: bash-4.1.17.pet.
MD5: 65d5f2f8c8447a1e87936e3976d5e947 bash-4.1.17.pet

EDIT: updated to the latest (#14) patch.
EDIT2: updated to the latest (#17) patch.

Greetings!

_________________
[O]bdurate [R]ules [D]estroy [E]nthusiastic [R]ebels => [C]reative [H]umans [A]lways [O]pen [S]ource
Omnia mea mecum porto.

Last edited by SFR on Tue 25 Nov 2014, 16:18; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
keniv

Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 494
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 07:54    Post subject:  

dejan555 wrote

Quote:
New version for dpup487, should work with same pups that the previous one was reported to work...


I tested on test savefile again (after removing first fix). Now on normal savefile which seems OK. So again working in Sulu 002 (updated version of Lucid 528).

Thanks again,

Ken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
prehistoric


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1733

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 09:00    Post subject:  

Applied dejan555 second version to stemsee's Puppy Precise 5.7.1 and ran cimarron's test script in console. So far, so good.

We need more testers, and we have a problem explaining the requirements to people who do not regularly compile code, and are not aware of the genealogy of the Puppy they are running. It took a while for me to decide that a 32-bit .deb package would work, and finding correct binaries on Ubuntu sites is currently challenging. When I started I was not sure if I was running a 32-bit PAE kernel or 64-bit kernel. For those with less experience this would be a serious obstacle.

We also need better explanations of the ancestry of the many Pupplets out there. Not everyone keeps up with code names used by Ubuntu, Debian or Puppy.

At first I thought the fix had failed, because I also got the syntax warning in cimarron's post. Then I realized the syntax error was necessary to run the test. The important thing was that no output file was created as a result. Before testing becomes more widespread we need to explain such details so that ordinary users don't have to puzzle this out on their own.

Any feature of open source code which can sit there for a couple of decades without anyone noticing has to be pretty obscure. This fits that description.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
anikin

Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 10:29    Post subject:  

As this article: http://cloudgames.com/blog/fix-bash-exploit-old-new-releases-ubuntu-apt-get/
implies, older debian/ubuntu based systems, can use bash from the current stable release. No need to search/wait for special, "old" versions. Makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rolf

Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 12:14    Post subject:  

mavrothal wrote:
Here is bash 3.0.18 for wary/racy 5.5 that also passes the
Code:
cd /tmp; rm -f /tmp/echo; env 'x=() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo date"; cat /tmp/echo
test.


I happen to be running a small webserver in Puppy 4.31 small on an Igel thin client.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=508271#508271

Not knowing how to switch shells for the vulnerable server functions, I'm grateful for this. Thanks. Smile

Code:
# bash -version
GNU bash, version 3.00.18(1)-release (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# cd /tmp; rm -f /tmp/echo; env 'x=() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo date"; cat /tmp/echo
bash: x: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token `='
bash: x: line 1: `'
bash: error importing function definition for `x'
date
cat: /tmp/echo: No such file or directory
# cat /etc/puppyversion
431
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Kester
Guest


PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:08    Post subject: BASH exposure expressed as bigger than Heartbleed.  

As suggested by Cimarron in an earlier post, I typed the following into the terminal to test Bash in my installation:
cd /tmp; rm -f /tmp/echo; env 'x=() { (a)=>\' bash -c "echo date"; cat /tmp/echo
The result I got was:
env: can't execute 'Bash': No such file or directory
cat: /temp/echo: No such file or directory

Hopefully, although the phrasing is not identical to that Cimarron shows for a non-vulnerable system, it would seem that as no date is shown, Bash is not vulnerable on my system at present. I would be grateful if the Puppy experts out there could confirm this (or otherwise) as I am still fairly naive when it comes to the under the bonnet/hood workings of Linux systems.

Taking Prehistoric's comment ("Before testing becomes more widespread we need to explain such details so that ordinary users don't have to puzzle this out on their own."), as one of those 'ordinary' users, I would appreciate any explanation in not too technical language.

I have considered removing Puppy Precise 5.7.1 from my dual boot (XP Pro) system by booting up my XP installation disc, opening the 'Repair' option and running 'fixmbr'. I would then return to using live discs for Puppy but perhaps there is no need to take such a drastic step - it's a question of lack of confidence caused by a lack of knowledge on my part. I'm more confident with Windows XP because I know it better but like Puppy very much and decided on dual booting for security reasons when Microsoft support for XP finished - I though I use Puppy for the bulk of my internet activity, so this Bash issue is a little ironic.
Back to top
prehistoric


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1733

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:21    Post subject:  

@Kester,

You don't need to do anything to invoke Bash from a console. It is the default command-line processor. If you tried to execute "Bash" you would run into the problem that a Unix/Linux console is case sensitive, so "Bash" is different from "bash", which is generally invoked automatically as "/bin/sh" without you having to specify anything. You may not even find the name "bash" in your /bin directory.

You can also save yourself some tricky typing by simply highlighting the test command in your browser, directly from this web page, and then doing a "middle-click" in your console window. This will copy highlighted text without needing a cut-and-paste.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
anikin

Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 17:39    Post subject:  

Quote:
I appreciate the effort made in patch bash43-026, but this patch doesn't even BEGIN to solve the underlying shellshock problem. This patch just continues the "whack-a-mole" job of fixing parsing errors that began with the first patch. Bash's parser is certain have many many many other vulnerabilities; it was never designed to be security-relevant…John Haxby recently posted that "A friend of mine said this could be a vulnerability gift that keeps on giving.” Bash will be a continuous rich source of system vulnerabilities until it STOPS automatically parsing normal environment variables; all other shells just pass them through! I've turned off several websites I control because I have *no* confidence that the current official bash patches actually stop anyone, and I am deliberately *not* buying products online today for the same reason. I suspect others have done the same. I think it's important that bash change its semantics so that it "obviously has absolutely no problems of this kind".
read more ==> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/09/still-more-vulnerabilities-in-bash-shellshock-becomes-whack-a-mole/
Bash is doomed, will Linux survive?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
James C


Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Posts: 6725
Location: Kentucky

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 17:50    Post subject: Shellshock vulnerability affects majority of Internet serve  

Shellshock vulnerability affects majority of Internet servers and devices; get technical information here

Scan your servers........

http://www.trendmicro.com/us/security/shellshock-bash-bug-exploit/index.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rolf

Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat 27 Sep 2014, 18:23    Post subject: Re: Shellshock vulnerability affects majority of Internet serve  

James C wrote:
Shellshock vulnerability affects majority of Internet servers and devices; get technical information here

Scan your servers........

http://www.trendmicro.com/us/security/shellshock-bash-bug-exploit/index.html


Well, I followed instructions and got all Pass. I guess this is thanks to the patched bash-3.00.18(1), tyvm, but have to trust trendmicro for the efficacy of the test. Also, the whack-a-mole issue still obtains, iianm. Confused
Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 5 of 13 [186 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Off-Topic Area » Security
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.4421s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0584s) ][ GZIP on ]