Home page logo
/

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: Recent Oracle exploit is _actually_ an 0day with no patch
From: "David Litchfield" <davidl () ngssoftware com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:24:20 +0100


The recent Oracle exploit posted to Bugtraq
(http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431353) is actually an 0day
and has no patch.

The referenced exploit seems to use GET_DOMAIN_INDEX_METADATA with a
TYPE_NAME that references an attacker-defined package with a
(modified?) ODCIIndexGetMeta function.

Your last example uses GET_V2_DOMAIN_INDEX_TABLES, with arguments that
reference an attacker-defined package with a (modified?)
ODCIIndexUtilGetTableNames function.

Is this a surface-level discrepancy, or is your vector substantively
different than the one in the exploit?  If these are different, then
is it possible that last week's exploit was actually fixed?

No; the same problem occurs. This is the kind of general problem I'm speaking about. Most vendors that actually understand security will look for other bugs in the same functional area if you point out a bug. IMO, my job as a security vulnerability researcher is to highlight problem areas - i.e. areas of functionality that are rife with issues. How can Oracle fix one issue but miss the same flaw two lines later??? In this case though, we're not just talking about one flaw but several. Really, it is inconceivable, yet they, somehow, manage to do it.

God forbid that any of our critical national infrastructure runs on this product.... oops it does :(

And every version from 8 through 9 to 10 release 2 is vulnerable. That's every supported version of Oracle on every operating system.

Oracle customers: honestly - Oracle are not going to listen to the likes of me - but they will listen folks like you. If you're not happy with the response you're getting from Oracle then get on the 'phone - call them up and tell them that you're not happy. Please, demand improvements.

By the way, this is not an isolated incident. I have many examples to hand where Oracle have tried to fix problems in the same functional area but only whitewashed it. They should be proactively looking for similar issues in the same code just like Microsoft does.

The "champion of quality coding movement" (http://www.cio.com/archive/031505/security.html) , who "applauds ethical hacking", asks "Why isn't that standard development process?"

I don't know... but I don't think we'll find out in the two year time frame posited; we've got less than a year to go.


- Steve

P.S. For those of you who are paying attention at this excruciating
level of detail, it seems that David's original use of
GET_DOMAIN_INDEX_METADATA in 2004 directly included the code in the
NEWBLOCK argument, whereas last week's exploit was performed through
an indirect reference to the code in the TYPE_NAME argument.

p.p.s.

Just to clarify the issues:

GET_DOMAIN_INDEX_TABLES
GET_DOMAIN_INDEX_METADATA
GET_V2_DOMAIN_INDEX_TABLES

are all vulnerable to the exploit.

Cheers,
David Litchfield
NGSSoftware Ltd,
http://www.ngssoftware.com/
+44 (0) 208 401 0070


  By Date           By Thread  

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