Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #377146 > unrolled thread

9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 14:25 +0000
    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 17:49 +0200
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:45 +0200
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:51 +0000
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:59 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:11 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 23:14 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:20 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:38 +0200
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 23:13 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:17 +0000
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:35 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-21 17:23 -0400
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:52 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:33 +0200
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:19 -0400
                    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-22 08:33 -0400
                      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 09:23 -0400
                        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 15:48 +0200
                          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 10:02 -0400
                            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 16:07 +0200
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-22 16:46 +0100
                                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-23 09:04 -0400
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 14:34 -0400
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-22 12:45 -0700
                            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 12:10 -0700
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-21 23:05 +0100
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-21 18:09 -0400
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-22 04:35 -0700
    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 11:50 -0400
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 15:56 +0000
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 12:46 -0400
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:16 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 18:30 -0400
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 22:54 +0000
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 16:10 +0000
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:34 -0700
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:43 +0200
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:45 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:47 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:52 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 19:31 -0600
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-22 01:46 +0000
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:30 +0200
                    A Flounder is as Flounder does Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:12 -0400
                    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-22 13:49 -0600
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 19:31 -0600
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-22 01:44 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-22 04:29 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:30 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-22 13:50 -0600
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:11 -0400
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2016-10-22 12:24 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#377146 — 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3

"Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
unfettered root access."


"The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
wrote:

    Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
reliably. Scary stuff.

    The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
system and execute it also works.

    The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
facing server is vulnerable. "

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377157

Jim Polaski wrote:

> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
> 
> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
> unfettered root access."
> 
> 
> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were
> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site
> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using
> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In
> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester
> wrote:
> 
>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very
> reliably. Scary stuff.
> 
>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system
> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application
> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted
> system and execute it also works.
> 
>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled
> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the
> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its
> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web
> facing server is vulnerable. "


It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop

And "Dirty COW" is *old*

Linus Torvalds himself describes the bug as being one he had himself patched 
(badly) in kernel 2.6.22, but it was later reverted to the old state.
Initially it was a rather "esoteric" bug, nearly impossible to exploit, but 
kernels have evolved and made the bug more serious. Seems to have been 
forgotten later because it had already been attended to


It is already patched, btw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377213

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
> > 
> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
> > unfettered root access."
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop

It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...

> 



-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377217

On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> 
>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>> > 
>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>> > unfettered root access."
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>
> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...

Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377220

On 21 Oct 2016 20:51:09 GMT
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >  
> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>   
> >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
> >> > 
> >> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
> >> > unfettered root access."
> >> > 
> >> >   
> >> 
> >> 
> >> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop  
> >
> > It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
> > access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...  
> 
> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
> 

Hm, how much is this exploited then in reality? Many eyes also search
for exploits. Since no one has noticed this bug probably was never
actually exploited in production...
I have seen lot's of exploits in the past gaining root access on
compromised machines and was always some pre-made program... that one
runs when he gains shell account.

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377221

On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2016 20:51:09 GMT
> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >  
>> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> >>   
>> >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>> >> > unfettered root access."
>> >> > 
>> >> >   
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop  
>> >
>> > It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>> > access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...  
>> 
>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>> 
>
> Hm, how much is this exploited then in reality? Many eyes also search
> for exploits. Since no one has noticed this bug probably was never
> actually exploited in production...
> I have seen lot's of exploits in the past gaining root access on
> compromised machines and was always some pre-made program... that one
> runs when he gains shell account.
>
According to the article it's been found in the wild.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377223

Melzzzzz wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2016 20:51:09 GMT
> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >  
>> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> >>   
>> >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>> >> > unfettered root access."
>> >> > 
>> >> >   
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>> >
>> > It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>> > access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>> 
>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>> 
> 
> Hm, how much is this exploited then in reality? Many eyes also search
> for exploits. Since no one has noticed this bug probably was never
> actually exploited in production...

It still needs a second one to gain access to the machine.
Like a flaw in a webserver. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377225

On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> On 21 Oct 2016 20:51:09 GMT
>> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> >  
>>> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> >>   
>>> >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>> >> > unfettered root access."
>>> >> > 
>>> >> >   
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>> >
>>> > It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>>> > access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>> 
>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hm, how much is this exploited then in reality? Many eyes also search
>> for exploits. Since no one has noticed this bug probably was never
>> actually exploited in production...
>
> It still needs a second one to gain access to the machine.
> Like a flaw in a webserver. 
>
It's been found in the wild.
Stop trying to defend it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377265

Jim Polaski wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2016 20:51:09 GMT
>>> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>> > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> >  
>>>> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> >>   
>>>> >> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>> >> > unfettered root access."
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >   
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>> >
>>>> > It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>>>> > access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>>> 
>>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hm, how much is this exploited then in reality? Many eyes also search
>>> for exploits. Since no one has noticed this bug probably was never
>>> actually exploited in production...
>>
>> It still needs a second one to gain access to the machine.
>> Like a flaw in a webserver.
>>
> It's been found in the wild.
> Stop trying to defend it.

Can't you read? I never said that it isn't found in the wild. *That* was the 
reason why it has been found, they encountered strange things on a webserver 
and acted.

It *still* needs a flaw in some openly accessible service to be of any 
threat to a machine. Because to exploit it you need access to it, at least 
as a normal user. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377222

Jim Polaski wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> 
>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>> > 
>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>> > unfettered root access."
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>
>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
> 
> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.

It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
reverted to the original state

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377224

On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>> > 
>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>
>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>> 
>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>
> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
> did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
> reverted to the original state

That's even worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377264

Jim Polaski wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>>
>>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>>>> access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>> 
>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>
>> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but
>> he did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later
>> removed and reverted to the original state
> 
> That's even worse.

No. It is human.
It was corrected, albeit not very good. When later reverted it got forgotten 
*because* it already had been tended to

The "many eyes" *did* work on that. Just that it failed the later revertion 
to the old code

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377226

On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>> > 
>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>
>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>> 
>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>
> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
> did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
> reverted to the original state

I have to wonder if Jim made this much stink over the 5 zero days
Microsoft had to patch a week ago...

https://threatpost.com/microsoft-patches-five-zero-days-under-attack/121211/

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377227

On 2016-10-21, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>>
>>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>>>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>> 
>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>
>> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
>> did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
>> reverted to the original state
>
> I have to wonder if Jim made this much stink over the 5 zero days
> Microsoft had to patch a week ago...
>
> https://threatpost.com/microsoft-patches-five-zero-days-under-attack/121211/
>
What stink?
I posted this a public service message to inform Linux users.
Too bad if you don't like hearing it. Hopefully it helps other Linux 
users.

And stop moving the goal posts.
If you want to discuss the Windows exploit start another thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377263

Jim Polaski wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>>>
>>>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell
>>>>> access... It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>>> 
>>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>>
>>> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but
>>> he did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later
>>> removed and reverted to the original state
>>
>> I have to wonder if Jim made this much stink over the 5 zero days
>> Microsoft had to patch a week ago...
>>
>> https://threatpost.com/microsoft-patches-five-zero-days-under-attack/121211/
>>
> What stink?
> I posted this a public service message to inform Linux users.
> Too bad if you don't like hearing it. Hopefully it helps other Linux
> users.

Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
Not only that, I got an update shortly before
Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you

> And stop moving the goal posts.
> If you want to discuss the Windows exploit start another thread.

Why? It has similar relevance

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377273

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you

It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot of
corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot of
dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious bugs
actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are quickly
issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.

-- 
Debian Hint #12: The grep-dctrl package provides a number of useful scripts
for quickly searching various package control files (such as the available
packages file).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377276

On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you
>
> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot of
> corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot of
> dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious bugs
> actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are quickly
> issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.

And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377277

On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you
>>
>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot of
>> corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot of
>> dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious bugs
>> actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are quickly
>> issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
> 
> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.

No comments? Let me leave one.

The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the way.

The five zero days from Microsoft were patched before anyone other than
the company had ever discovered them and there is no reason to believe
that they had been exploited at all.

There's your comment.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377283

Snit Slimeshit wrote:

> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you
>>>
>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot of
>>> dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious bugs
>>> actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are quickly
>>> issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>> 
>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
> 
> No comments? Let me leave one.
> 
> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time

Proof? *Any* at all?
Thought so

> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the way.

Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
"Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things

> The five zero days from Microsoft were patched before anyone other than
> the company had ever discovered them and there is no reason to believe
> that they had been exploited at all.
> 
And you know that *how* exactly?

And how many zero days are there actively being used? You have no idea, nor 
has MS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377285

On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like you
>>>>
>>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot of
>>>> dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious bugs
>>>> actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are quickly
>>>> issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>>>
>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
>>
>> No comments? Let me leave one.
>>
>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
> 
> Proof? *Any* at all?
> Thought so

I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
<http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>

First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
users to install a patch as soon as possible."

>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the way.
> 
> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things

Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.

>> The five zero days from Microsoft were patched before anyone other than
>> the company had ever discovered them and there is no reason to believe
>> that they had been exploited at all.
>>
> And you know that *how* exactly?
> 
> And how many zero days are there actively being used? You have no idea, nor 
> has MS

Meanwhile, you have no idea about anything at all, retard.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web