Home page logo
/

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: Buffer overflow in Nmap when using -ox - on a /8 scan
From: Henri Doreau <henri.doreau () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:44:42 +0100

2014-01-27 Henri Doreau <henri.doreau () gmail com>:
2014-01-27 Henri Doreau <henri.doreau () gmail com>:
2014-01-27 Daniel Miller <bonsaiviking () gmail com>:
On 01/26/2014 10:46 AM, Daniel Miller wrote:

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Henri Doreau <henri.doreau () gmail com>
wrote:

Hi,

2014-01-25 Jacek Wielemborek <d33tah () gmail com>:

Hi,

I just found a potentially interesting error. While experimenting with
Nmap, I
managed to get this strange error on Nmap 6.40 from Fedora 20:

[22:46:39][/tmp][134] $ nmap localhost/8 --min-rate 100000  -ox - -sT
[...]

Huh?! What is "-sT --min-rate 100000"?

It looks like the error comes from FD_ISSET, because you forced nmap
to open sockets beyond FD_SETSIZE. What we could have is a
CHECKED_FD_ISSET, that would abort() just like CHECK_FD_SET if the
socket # is greater than FD_SETSIZE. That would make the crash a bit
nicer but wouldn't essentially change anything...

It looks like this check is supposed to fail, since it does without
optimization (search Jacek's message for "FD_SETSIZE"). So the
compiler is optimizing out the CHECKED_FD_SET check?

Dan
.

Correction: It's not an optimization difference, it's a -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE
difference. In the first (optimized) case, the code runs afoul of a fortify
bounds check when executing FD_ISSET, so it never gets to the checks
involved in CHECKED_FD_SET on the lines below it. In the unoptimized
version, -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE doesn't apply, so the code gets to Nmap's own
checks and aborts there.

Yes, I think you're right.

The cleanest solution would seem to be Henri's suggested CHECKED_FD_ISSET,
but since FD_ISSET returns an int, I don't see how it could be properly
wrapped in the do{}while(0) and still checked. I think an explicit check
would be best, right after the assert(sd >= 0);

Dan
A static inline function would be an option, but I'd then like to have
CHECKED_FD_SET turned into one as well for the sake of consistency.
What do you think? External check is OK too, but there would be a
couple other ones to add.

Regards

--
Henri

Answering to my own post: how do you feel about this patch (attached)?

Just checked it in.

-- 
Henri
_______________________________________________
Sent through the dev mailing list
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


  By Date           By Thread  

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