Home page logo

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: iplogger-1.1+ident
From: bmitch () CTP COM (Brian Mitchell)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:04:58 +0100

That's not the only problem with both the old and new version of iplogger. There is a DNS buffer overflow (to a static 
buffer, so it might not be exploitable) in the original version.

In the new version, there seems to be an ident overflow from extremely casual inspection:

if (read(j, buf, 256) <= 0) {
                sprintf(bleah, "unknown () %s", hostlookup(remote_addr));
        } else {
                sscanf(buf, "%*d , %*d : %*[^ \t\n\r:] : %*[^\t\n\r:] : %[^\n\r
]", uname);

                sprintf(bleah, "%s () %s", uname, hostlookup(remote_addr));

uname is a 64 byte char string allocated on the stack, so it appears it is vulnerable to a remote overflow which would 
give the attacker root access.

If(!fork) is also not the best idea, since it will evaluate to true if fork() fails (returns -1). If the fork() fails 
twice, and the syn is spoofed, the ident connection could block for a long time if the src addr is filtering that port, 
and in the meantime, no connections will be logged.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Matt Watson [SMTP:sideshow () SATURN TERAHERTZ NET]
Sent:   Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:28 AM
Subject:        iplogger-1.1+ident

Hello, today i was wondering around sunsite and noticed a newer version of
iplogger there:
Anyways i decided to take a look at the new code at the first thing that
popped right out was:
        while (1) {
                read(s, (struct ippkt *) &pkt, 9999);
                if (pkt.tcp.syn == 1 && pkt.tcp.ack == 0) {
                        if (!fork()) { /* double fork()    */
                                if (!fork()) {  /* to avoid zombies */
                                        openlog("tcplogd", 0, LOG_DAEMON);

^^ lines 34-39
now then, that double fork... thats well uhm evil.  That has remote
fork-bomb written all over it.  just load up your favorite port scanner
and scan away and watch your machine fork like crazy!  Anyways just
another comment on the new iplogger, it seems it only logs connections to
ports which are not open? I dunno about everybody else but personally i'd
rather know who is connecting to ports I do have open rather than who is
trying to connect to ports i don't have open.  Anyways thats my 2 cents.

-/- Matt Watson
    TeraHertz Communications Administrator
    For quality web space and shells checkout www.terahertz.net

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]