ID CVE-2009-3289
Summary The g_file_copy function in glib 2.0 sets the permissions of a target file to the permissions of a symbolic link (777), which allows user-assisted local users to modify files of other users, as demonstrated by using Nautilus to modify the permissions of the user home directory.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • GNOME Glib 2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:gnome:glib:2.0
CVSS
Base: 4.4 (as of 22-09-2009 - 13:57)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-264
CAPEC
  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.
  • Manipulating Input to File System Calls
    An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
LOCAL MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_11_0_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    description The when copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289).
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 46007
    published 2010-04-27
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=46007
    title openSUSE Security Update : glib2 (openSUSE-SU-2010:0155-1)
  • NASL family Ubuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL id UBUNTU_USN-841-1.NASL
    description Arand Nash discovered that applications linked to GLib (e.g. Nautilus) did not correctly copy symlinks. If a user copied symlinks with GLib, the symlink target files would become world-writable, allowing local attackers to gain access to potentially sensitive information. Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Ubuntu security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-28
    plugin id 42043
    published 2009-10-06
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=42043
    title Ubuntu 8.04 LTS / 8.10 / 9.04 : glib2.0 vulnerability (USN-841-1)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_11_1_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    description The when copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289). This update also fixes a problem where glib2 couldn't access remote URLs when run outside of a gnome session.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 46010
    published 2010-04-27
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=46010
    title openSUSE Security Update : glib2 (openSUSE-SU-2010:0156-1)
  • NASL family Mandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL id MANDRIVA_MDVSA-2009-245.NASL
    description A vulnerability was discovered and corrected in glib2.0 : The g_file_copy function in glib 2.0 sets the permissions of a target file to the permissions of a symbolic link (777), which allows user-assisted local users to modify files of other users, as demonstrated by using Nautilus to modify the permissions of the user home directory (CVE-2009-3289). This update provides a solution to this vulnerability.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-02
    plugin id 41619
    published 2009-09-25
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=41619
    title Mandriva Linux Security Advisory : glib2.0 (MDVSA-2009:245)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_11_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    description When copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289). This has been fixed. This update also fixes a problem where glib2 couldn't access remote URLs when run outside of a GNOME session.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2013-10-25
    plugin id 50911
    published 2010-12-02
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=50911
    title SuSE 11 Security Update : glib2 (SAT Patch Number 1831)
refmap via4
confirm https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glib2.0/+bug/418135
misc https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593406
mlist [oss-security] 20090908 CVE Request - glib symlink copying permission exposure
secunia 39656
suse SUSE-SR:2010:010
vupen ADV-2010-1001
statements via4
contributor Joshua Bressers
lastmodified 2009-09-23
organization Red Hat
statement Not vulnerable. This issue does not affect the versions of glib2 as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, or 5.
Last major update 20-05-2010 - 01:44
Published 22-09-2009 - 06:30
Back to Top