public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 0/1] uname26 exploit regression test
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:36:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170217113653.595ce1b4@linux-v3j5> (raw)

Hi,

I have essentially rewritten the following expoit to be used in the LTP:
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/37937/ (Metan's idea AFAIK). There are
some issues which I came across while doing this, even though it is quite an
easy exploit to recreate.

1) How should we organise the exploit tests? I see Metan has added dirtyc0w
   under that name in its own folder. Not all exploits have a fancy or unique
   name however. I have just named the uname exploit with its CVE name and put
   it in a new uname folder, but I'm not sure that is the best way either.

2) What is the appropriate runtest file for security tests? I think they
   should be separated from functional tests.

3) The exploit code from the link is licensed under GPLv3. Although I rewrote
   the LTP test from scratch, the fact I saw the exploit code raises the
   question of whether my test is a derivative work. The easiest thing to do
   would be to attribute the exploit code author and simply state that the
   test is an adaptation, but then I believe the test would need to be GPLv3.
   Of course, I can just ask the author to relicense the original under GPLv2,
   but lets assume they don't consent or can't be contacted.

4) This is maybe a question for a security/kernel mailing list, but which
   exploits are most likely to be reintroduced to the kernel? I am not sure
   that this exploit is at high risk of being reintroduced. At least not into
   mainline or any of the major distro branches.

Thank you,
Richard.

Richard Palethorpe (1):
  security: Test for uname26 exploit cve-2012-0957

 testcases/kernel/security/uname/.gitignore      |  1 +
 testcases/kernel/security/uname/Makefile        | 20 ++++++
 testcases/kernel/security/uname/cve-2012-0957.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/security/uname/.gitignore
 create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/security/uname/Makefile
 create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/security/uname/cve-2012-0957.c

-- 
2.11.0

             reply	other threads:[~2017-02-17 10:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-17 10:36 Richard Palethorpe [this message]
2017-02-20 10:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH 0/1] uname26 exploit regression test Cyril Hrubis
2017-03-01 15:10   ` Richard Palethorpe
2017-03-01 15:57     ` Cyril Hrubis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170217113653.595ce1b4@linux-v3j5 \
    --to=rpalethorpe@suse.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox