CVE-2017-18344
Description
The timer_create syscall implementation in kernel/time/posix-timers.c in the Linux kernel doesn't properly validate the sigevent->sigev_notify field, which leads to out-of-bounds access in the show_timer function.
Mitigation
Attached to this bugzilla is a systemtap script that will prevent opening (and therefore reading) the /proc/<process>/timers file which is used to leak information.
The SystemTap script is relatively small and efficient, broken into 3 distinct sections as follows:
--------
probe kernel.function("proc_timers_open@fs/proc/base.c").return {
// this is -EACCES
$return = -13;
message = sprintf("CVE-2017-18344 mitigation denied access to %s to %s(%d)", file_name , execname(), pid());
// print a warning message at KERN_INFO debug level
printk(6, message);
}
probe begin {
printk(6, "Mitigation for CVE-2017-18344 loaded.\n");
}
probe end {
printk(6, "Mitigation for CVE-2017-18344 unloaded.\n");
}
---------
First, the script places a probe at the return of the kernel function “proc_timers_open” when called. This modifies the return value to be EACCES which would return this value to userspace preventing this file from being opened. When the /proc/<pid>/timer file is attempted to be opened, a message will be logged to the kernel log subsystem showing the process and pid of the application attempting to access the timer file.
This file is not in widespread use at this time, although some applications may read from it to debug or understand their own timers that are set. This mitigation will not be useful in this context.
Finally, the “probe begin” and “probe end” code blocks tell systemtap to add the supplied text to the kernel log buffer via the printk function. This creates an audit trail by registering in the system logs exactly when the mitigation is loaded and unloaded. This will need to be compiled with guru mode (-g parameter) to compile.
This will need to be loaded at each boot to remain effective. Red Hat Product security recommends updating to a patched kernel when it is available.
Red Hat always seeks to provide both mitigations to disable attacks as well as the actual patches to treat the flaw. To learn more about SystemTap, and how it can be used in your management of your Red Hat systems, please refer to Using SystemTap[1] or one of our videos about it within our Customer Portal[2].
1 - https://access.redhat.com/articles/17839
2 - https://access.redhat.com/search/#/?q=systemtap
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.1 | 5.5 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Local | Local | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Low | N/A |
| Privileges Required | None | Low | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Changed | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | High | High | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | None | N/A |
| Availability Impact | None | None | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
NVD: CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Memory
An attacker could get secret values such as cryptographic keys, PII, memory addresses, or other information that could be used in additional attacks.
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
Out-of-bounds memory could contain memory addresses or other information that can be used to bypass ASLR and other protection mechanisms in order to improve the reliability of exploiting a separate weakness for code execution.
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
An attacker could cause a segmentation fault or crash by causing memory to be read outside of the bounds of the buffer. This is especially likely when the code reads a variable amount of data and assumes that a sentinel exists to stop the read operation, such as a NUL in a string.
Other
Technical Impact: Varies by Context
The read operation could produce other undefined or unexpected results.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.