69%
34%
165%
Linux kernel before 2.6.25.2 does not apply a certain protection mechanism for fcntl functionality, which allows local users to (1) execute code in parallel or (2) exploit a race condition to obtain "re-ordered access to the descriptor table."
Linux kernel before 2.6.25.2 does not apply a certain protection mechanism for fcntl functionality, which allows local users to (1) execute code in parallel or (2) exploit a race condition to obtain "re-ordered access to the descriptor table."
CVSS 2.0 Base Score 6.9. CVSS Attack Vector: local. CVSS Attack Complexity: medium. CVSS Vector: (AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C).
This example attempts to write user messages to a message file and allow users to view them.
}echo "Message Saved!<p>\n";include($MessageFile);While the programmer intends for the MessageFile to only include data, an attacker can provide a message such as:
message=%3C?php%20system(%22/bin/ls%20-l%22);?%3Ewhich will decode to the following:
<?php system("/bin/ls -l");?>The programmer thought they were just including the contents of a regular data file, but PHP parsed it and executed the code. Now, this code is executed any time people view messages.
Notice that XSS (CWE-79) is also possible in this situation.
edit-config.pl: This CGI script is used to modify settings in a configuration file.
}
# code to add a field/key to a file goes here
# code to set key to a particular file goes here
# code to delete key from a particular file goes here
eval($code);# this is super-efficient code, especially if you have to invoke# any one of dozens of different functions!handleConfigAction($configfile, param('action'));print "No action specified!\n";The script intends to take the 'action' parameter and invoke one of a variety of functions based on the value of that parameter - config_file_add_key(), config_file_set_key(), or config_file_delete_key(). It could set up a conditional to invoke each function separately, but eval() is a powerful way of doing the same thing in fewer lines of code, especially when a large number of functions or variables are involved. Unfortunately, in this case, the attacker can provide other values in the action parameter, such as: add_key(",","); system("/bin/ls"); This would produce the following string in handleConfigAction(): config_file_add_key(",","); system("/bin/ls"); Any arbitrary Perl code could be added after the attacker has "closed off" the construction of the original function call, in order to prevent parsing errors from causing the malicious eval() to fail before the attacker's payload is activated. This particular manipulation would fail after the system() call, because the "_key(\$fname, \$key, \$val)" portion of the string would cause an error, but this is irrelevant to the attack because the payload has already been activated.
This code could be used in an e-commerce application that supports transfers between accounts. It takes the total amount of the transfer, sends it to the new account, and deducts the amount from the original account.
NotifyUser("New balance: $newbalance");FatalError("Bad Transfer Amount");FatalError("Insufficient Funds");A race condition could occur between the calls to GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase().
Suppose the balance is initially 100.00. An attack could be constructed as follows:
PROGRAM-2 sends a request to update the database, setting the balance to 99.00At this stage, the attacker should have a balance of 19.00 (due to 81.00 worth of transfers), but the balance is 99.00, as recorded in the database.
To prevent this weakness, the programmer has several options, including using a lock to prevent multiple simultaneous requests to the web application, or using a synchronization mechanism that includes all the code between GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase().
The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource.
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);/* access shared resource */However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior.
In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting it to higher levels.
}
return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);return result;/* access shared resource */Suppose a processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) has 5 other shadow MMUs to distribute its workload for its various cores. Each MMU has the start address and end address of "accessible" memory. Any time this accessible range changes (as per the processor's boot status), the main MMU sends an update message to all the shadow MMUs.
Suppose the interconnect fabric does not prioritize such "update" packets over other general traffic packets. This introduces a race condition. If an attacker can flood the target with enough messages so that some of those attack packets reach the target before the new access ranges gets updated, then the attacker can leverage this scenario.
ExploitPedia is constantly evolving. Sign up to receive a notification when we release additional functionality.
If you'd like to report a bug or have any suggestions for improvements then please do get in touch with us using this form. We will get back to you as soon as we can.