Apache Prefork MPM vulnerabilities - Report

Advisory Content :

-----
Apache Prefork MPM vulnerabilities
----------------------------------

PSNC Security Team

http://security.psnc.pl/files/apache_report.pdf

1. Introduction

This small case study is a result of source code analysis of Apache httpd
server MPM modules. The main goal of this document is to show, what may be
done by an attacker who has the possibility of running arbitrary code in
the context of the worker process (WP).

2. Research scope

Our work has been concentrated on verifying whether (and to which extent)
it is secure to run an external code in the worker process context. Such
code may be provided through appropriate functions of script languages
attached as a module (like dl(), dlopen()) or as a result of running an
exploit of one of vulnerabilities found in Apache modules (e.g. Integer
Overflow in chunk_split() function). In order to simulate running an
external code in the WP context we use dl() function from mod_php module.

3. Prefork MPM

Prefork MPM is the default Apache httpd server process management module
for *nix systems. A server based upon this architecture runs 1 master
process (MP) and n worker processes (WP). The MP running with root
credentials, controls the amount of WPs. WPs acting with nobody user
credentials handle the users requests.

(...)

4. Additional information useful for vulnerability analysis
a. Running arbitrary code in the worker process

For demonstration purposes we will use mod_php module. This module allows
to run PHP scripts in the context of WP process. In order to run the code
we will use dl() function that allows to load a custom PHP module. The dl()
function loads a library (dlopen) and looks for appropriate symbols in
order to check whether the library being loaded is a PHP module. Putting
arbitrary code in the init section of this library causes running that code
during loading this library by the WP.

b. Finding process_score and worker_score arrays

In our examples we use vulnerabilities associated with modifying
process_score and worker_score structures arrays. These arrays are located
in scoreboard array that is put into a shared memory segment.
The first task to do is to find the shared memory segment address. In order
to find that address we find the /dev/zero (Apache 2.x) or //SYS. (Apache
1.3) memory in /proc/self/maps file.

Example 1

(...)

As we know how to run arbitrary code in the WP process context and where
the two arrays are located, let.s have some fun modifying the arrays.

5. Bugs, weaknesses, features
PoC #1: httpd DoS

(..)

In the process_score array we put a random PID > 0 and we set its status in
the worker_score array as 1. Additionally we send a SIGKILL signal to all
other WPs. After both arrays are modified, we finish the WP activity.

The MP will no longer create new WPs, because . according to the
information taken from the worker_score array, there are WPs able to handle
incoming requests.

PoC #2 DoS (Apache 1.3.x, 2.x)

As we look at the function responsible for creating new WPs, we can see
that it uses for that purpose the information taken from the process_score
and worker_score structures. The procedure of verifying the new processes
amount is run after one of the WPs finishes its activity
(ap_wait_or_timeout(&exitwhy, &status, &pid, pconf);). An exemplary code
that forces the MP to create an unlimited amount of new WPs looks like
shown below:

Example 3
while(1) {
int pid1;
usleep(1000);
for(i=0;i<(wsk_global_score->server_limit);i++)
{
if((wsk_process_score+i)->pid && (wsk_process_score+i)->pid!=mypid)
pid1=(wsk_process_score+i)->pid;
(wsk_process_score+i)->pid=0;
(wsk_worker_score+i)->my_access_count=0;
(wsk_worker_score+i)->access_count=0;
(wsk_worker_score+i)->status=0;
}
if(pid1) kill(pid1,9);
}

The function above clears worker_score and process_score arrays. The MP,
after having reviewed empty worker_score and process_score arrays finds
that there is an insufficient amount of free WP processes. However, the
function kills some of remaining WPs, because of which the MP continues its
activity stopped at the ap_wait_or_timeout(&exitwhy, &status, &pid, pconf);
function and creates another 5 new processes.
The function shown above forces creating an unlimited amount of WP
processes by the MP process, which in turn causes consuming all server
resources.

PoC #3 SIGUSR1 killer #1 (Apache 2.x)

(...)

PoC #4 SIGUSR1 killer #2 (Apache 1.3)

The MP process is able to remove unnecessary processes. If there are too
many WP processes with IDLE status, the MP sends SIGUSR1 signal to the
appropriate process taken from the process_score array. During sending the
signal the MP process does not verify whether the PID put into the
process_score array is really a PID that belongs to the appropriate WP
process. Therefore a specific modification of worker_score and
process_score arrays allows to send SIGUSR1 signal to arbitrary process in
the system by the MP process.

Example 3

(...)

The function, after it checks that there is too many free WP processes,
sends a SIGUSR1 signal to one of them.

The weaknesses mentioned below are rather features that result from the
server architecture, than security vulnerabilities. However, they are worth
mentioning just to exhaust the subject of Apache security.

PoC #5 Stealing the sensitive data (Apache 1.3.x, 2.x)

The Apache server architecture (1 MP managing the child processes and n WPs
that respond to client requests) assumes that any WP is able to serve a
request that is directed to any virtual host. Therefore each of the WPs has
got a complete information on the whole server configuration.

(...)

PoC #6 Spoofing (Apache 1.3.x, 2.x)

The Apache Web server architecture makes it possible for the modules to
attach their own functions to appropriate hooks. The information on hooks
is stored in an apr_global_hook_pool structure that is located in the heap
memory of each WP. The pool is configured during the start of the system.
The pool contents is not verified by the WP during handling consecutive
requests from the clients. The modification of entries put into hook chains
will be visible during every further request being handled by the same WP.
A specific modification of the pool (adding own functions to appropriate
hooks) gives the possibility of generating arbitrary content for any
virtual host configured within the same instance of Apache Web server.

The source code of an example that is able to exploit this vulnerability is
too extensive to be put within this report. An exemplary tool that modifies
the content of apr_global_hook_pool pool may be downloaded from the PSNC
Security Team webpage.

6. Summary . A secure installation

The vulnerabilities mentioned above may be exploited in some specific
situations (e.g. an attacker must be able to run the code in the WP
context). The analysis shows that the server is secure only if the
administrator does not allow to run a dangerous code. Therefore the
question arises . how to secure a hosting system?
An administrator who secures his or her server should follow the guidelines
below:
. All content generators (php, perl etc.) must be run by separate
processes. The languages should be attached to the Web server as cgi/fcgi!
. Beware of the mod_ssi extension. The extension allows to run external
applications with daemon/apache credentials <--#exec cmd=.. -->
. For each virtual host a separate user within the system should be
created, whose credentials will be used for generating content.
. Virtual hosts should be created only for trusted domains. For the users
that do not trust each other, a separate instance of the Web server should
be rather applied.

(...)

All report is now available online -
http://security.psnc.pl/files/apache_report.pdf

PSNC Security Team

Security

IT News

Search

SecurityAlert Database

About SecurityAlert

ExploitAlert Database

SecurityReason Research

WLB Database

Send to WLB

About WLB

Security Audit

Schedule

Prices of services

Contact

SecurityReason IT News

SecurityAlert

World Laboratory of Bugtraq

ExploitAlert

Apache

PHP

Contact

About SecurityReason

Apache Prefork MPM vulnerabilities - Report