ID CVE-2011-2471
Summary utils/opcontrol in OProfile 0.9.6 and earlier might allow local users to gain privileges via shell metacharacters in the (1) --vmlinux, (2) --session-dir, or (3) --xen argument, related to the daemonrc file and the do_save_setup and do_load_setup functions, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-1760.
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.5.3
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.5
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.5.2
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.5.1
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.6.1
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.8.1
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.7
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.7.1
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.8
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.1
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.2
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.3
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.4
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.5
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.5.4
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.4
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.3
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.6
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.8.2
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.2
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.9.6
  • Maynard Johnson OProfile 0.1
Base: 7.2 (as of 10-06-2011 - 12:20)
  • 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://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.
nessus via4
  • NASL family Ubuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL id UBUNTU_USN-1166-1.NASL
    description Stephane Chauveau discovered that OProfile did not properly perform input validation when processing arguments to opcontrol. A local user who is allowed to run opcontrol with privileges could exploit this to run arbitrary commands as the privileged user. (CVE-2011-1760, CVE-2011-2471) Stephane Chauveau discovered a directory traversal vulnerability in OProfile when processing the --save argument to opcontrol. A local user could exploit this to overwrite arbitrary files with the privileges of the user invoking the program. (CVE-2011-2472). 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 2018-12-01
    plugin id 55567
    published 2011-07-12
    reporter Tenable
    title Ubuntu 10.04 LTS : oprofile vulnerabilities (USN-1166-1)
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-201412-09.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-201412-09 (Multiple packages, Multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 2011) Vulnerabilities have been discovered in the packages listed below. Please review the CVE identifiers in the Reference section for details. FMOD Studio PEAR Mail LVM2 GnuCash xine-lib Scrobbler WebKitGTK+ shadow tool suite PEAR unixODBC Resource Agents mrouted rsync XML Security Library xrdb Vino OProfile syslog-ng sFlow Toolkit GNOME Display Manager libsoup CA Certificates Gitolite QtCreator Racer Impact : A context-dependent attacker may be able to gain escalated privileges, execute arbitrary code, cause Denial of Service, obtain sensitive information, or otherwise bypass security restrictions. Workaround : There are no known workarounds at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2017-04-15
    plugin id 79962
    published 2014-12-15
    reporter Tenable
    title GLSA-201412-09 : Multiple packages, Multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 2011
refmap via4
debian DSA-2254
  • [oss-security] 20110503 Re: Re: CVE Request -- oprofile -- Local privilege escalation via crafted opcontrol event parameter when authorized by sudo
  • [oss-security] 20110510 Re: Re: CVE Request -- oprofile -- Local privilege escalation via crafted opcontrol event parameter when authorized by sudo
  • [oss-security] 20110511 Re: Re: CVE Request -- oprofile -- Local privilege escalation via crafted opcontrol event parameter when authorized by sudo
secunia 45205
ubuntu USN-1166-1
xf oprofile-opcontrol-priv-escalation(67980)
Last major update 06-09-2011 - 23:17
Published 09-06-2011 - 17:55
Last modified 28-08-2017 - 21:29
Back to Top