Bash bug
-
- DEV Team
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: 09 Feb 2013, 09:55
- Distribution: APorteus-FVWM-ja-x86_64.iso
- Location: japan
Re: Bash bug
Post#31 by neko » 11 Oct 2014, 07:14
001-core3.xzm was updated to 001-core4.xzm.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/8goqr ... -core4.xzm
md5sum: 0bcd417e010716db876be750ff6d2889 001-core4.xzm
'bash', the content of 001-core3.xzm, was updated
depending on 32 bit UBUNTU14.04 updating
from the "bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.5_i386" to the "bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386".
================================================
@Rava
1."is dash working fine for all bash scripts?"
No, there are many issues which were already explained by brokenman.
2."Can it be used for the time being as a complete bash replacement
until the bash shellshock vulnerability issues are solved?"
No, it can not be used as a complete bash replacement.
Because it is too difficult for the "complete bash replacement"
to keep the quality by the short time maintenance.
3."how would one incorporate that?"
001-core.xzm could be replaced, and then be rebooted.
4."are you really running XFCE-v2.0-rc2-i486.iso as your avatar text suggests?"
I updated my avatar profile.
================================================
@donald
results of bashcheck.
[bash of 001-core3.xzm]
Testing /bin/bash ...
GNU bash, version 4.2.25(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [(), redhat], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
[bash of 001-core4.xzm]
Testing /home/guest/work/bash/bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386/bin/bash ...
GNU bash, version 4.2.25(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [%%, upstream], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
Thanks.
neko
- francois
- Contributor
- Posts: 6514
- Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 14:25
- Distribution: xfce plank porteus nemesis
- Location: Le printemps, le printemps, le printemps... ... l'hiver s'essoufle.
Re: Bash bug
Post#32 by francois » 11 Oct 2014, 12:11
Thanks for the bash tester.
@neko:
Thanks for the new core module. It does pass the test.
francois
- Rava
- Contributor
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 02:46
- Distribution: XFCE 5.01 x86_64 + 4.0 i586
- Location: Forests of Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#33 by Rava » 11 Oct 2014, 21:30
Thanks for the info.
How do you implement updates newer than bash-4.2.050?
That's the newest txz I found. Me thinks the newer updates have to be merged into the source code and bash needs to be compiled, or am I wrong here?
Cause this is what I get running the newest available slackware patch-level on x86-64:
# bashcheck
Testing /usr/bin/bash ...
GNU bash, version 4.2.50(2)-release (x86_64-slackware-linux-gnu)
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [%%, upstream], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
Yours Rava
Rava
-
- DEV Team
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: 09 Feb 2013, 09:55
- Distribution: APorteus-FVWM-ja-x86_64.iso
- Location: japan
Re: Bash bug
Post#34 by neko » 12 Oct 2014, 03:25
Creating 001-core4.xzm was done as following steps.
1.get bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.deb from
the updated newest 32 bit UBUNTU14.04 by synaptic.
2.get libtinfo.so.5.9 by USM or other tool.
3.expand bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.deb by commands under root privilege.
# ar x bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.deb
# mv data.tar.gz bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.tgz
# tar -xzf control.tar.gz
4.create "PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:" text.
# echo "bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386: " > bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.txt
# cat control | sed "s/^/bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386: /g" >> bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.txt
# echo "bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386: " >> bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.txt
5.install bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.tgz into temporary root.
# mkdir root
# installpkg -root root bash_4.2-2ubuntu2.6_i386.tgz
# cd root/bin
# ln -sf bash sh
# cd ../..
# cd root/usr/bin
# ln -sf ../../bin/bash .
# cd ../../..
# mkdir -p root/lib
# mv libtinfo.so.5.9 root/lib/.
# cd root/lib
# ln -sf libtinfo.so.5.9 libtinfo.so.5
# cd ../..
7.create 001-core4.xzm
# mloop 001-core.xzm
# mkdir new
# cp -a /mnt/loop/* new/.
# uloop
# cp -a root/* new/.
# mksquashfs new 001-core4.xzm -b 256K -comp xz -Xbcj x86
Thanks.
neko
-
- DEV Team
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: 09 Feb 2013, 09:55
- Distribution: APorteus-FVWM-ja-x86_64.iso
- Location: japan
Re: Bash bug
Post#35 by neko » 12 Oct 2014, 06:02
A sample 64 bit 001-core4.xzm was uploaded.
'sample' means that this 001-core4.xzm was not tested
because I do not have 64 bit PC now.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/faety ... -core4.xzm
md5sum: 61f6704ac7885b2e909775451982b0f4 001-core4.xzm
Thanks.
============================================
bash_4.3-7ubuntu1.5_amd64.deb was gotten from the site
http://pkgs.org/search/bash
libtinfo.so.5.9 was gotten from the ISO
Porteus-FVWM-v3.0.1-x86_64-2.iso
neko
-
- White ninja
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 30 Sep 2014, 18:28
- Distribution: Porteus 3 KDE4, Slacko 5.7
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Bash bug
Post#36 by slack_distros_rock » 14 Oct 2014, 14:40
neko wrote:@Rava
A sample 64 bit 001-core4.xzm was uploaded.
'sample' means that this 001-core4.xzm was not tested
because I do not have 64 bit PC now.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/faety ... -core4.xzm
md5sum: 61f6704ac7885b2e909775451982b0f4 001-core4.xzm
Thanks.
============================================
bash_4.3-7ubuntu1.5_amd64.deb was gotten from the site
http://pkgs.org/search/bash
libtinfo.so.5.9 was gotten from the ISO
Porteus-FVWM-v3.0.1-x86_64-2.iso
I have a new 3.0.1 KDE4 64 install where I replaced the 001-core with the 001-core4.
Now
Code: Select all
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
Code: Select all
this is a test
Code: Select all
vulnerable
Wikipedia on Marshall McLuhan
slack_distros_rock
-
- Full of knowledge
- Posts: 2106
- Joined: 17 Jun 2013, 13:17
- Distribution: Porteus 3.2.2 XFCE 32bit
- Location: Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#37 by donald » 14 Oct 2014, 22:13
It would be more meaningful to test against all (so far known) vulnerabilities.
Not just one..

donald
- Rava
- Contributor
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 02:46
- Distribution: XFCE 5.01 x86_64 + 4.0 i586
- Location: Forests of Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#38 by Rava » 15 Oct 2014, 06:55
Is there a script that does just that? I just run the "bashcheck" one... but sadly, it seems not to have any version info in it.donald wrote:It would be more meaningful to test against all (so far known) vulnerabilities.
Not just one..
Does "bashcheck" enough to be called "test against all (so far known) vulnerabilities"?
______________________________________________________
slack_distros_rock :
Checking out your 001-core4.xzm soon...
______________________________________________________
How best does one make an comparison of what was changed in a module?
xzm2copy both into separate folders, and then run md5sum on all files but symlinks?
Is there already a script or cli one-liner that does just that?
Or is a different approach than md5sum'em'all better?
______________________________________________________
Strange enough, with my current system, that is 001-core_bash-4.2.050 ... there is a difference in what bashcheck reports.
When I run it as root in XFCe terminal, I get this:
Code: Select all
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Code: Select all
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Any ideas why that differs? Not happy that root, of all users, has a higher vulnerability (even when the script tells me "non-exploitable" than normal user...
And ideas why that could be?
Yours Rava
Rava
-
- Full of knowledge
- Posts: 2106
- Joined: 17 Jun 2013, 13:17
- Distribution: Porteus 3.2.2 XFCE 32bit
- Location: Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#39 by donald » 15 Oct 2014, 11:05
The linked page explains which vulnerabilities are checked by "bashcheck"Is there a script that does just that?
???..not to have any version info in it.
Not on my end, with original slackware patch:.. there is a difference in what bashcheck reports.
Code: Select all
guest@porteus:~$ ./bashcheck
Testing /usr/bin/bash ...
GNU bash, Version 4.2.50(2)-release (i486-slackware-linux-gnu)
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [%%, upstream], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
guest@porteus:~$ su
Passwort:
root@porteus:~# cd /home/guest
root@porteus:/home/guest# ./bashcheck
Testing /usr/bin/bash ...
GNU bash, Version 4.2.50(2)-release (i486-slackware-linux-gnu)
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [%%, upstream], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Found non-exploitable CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
root@porteus:/home/guest#
donald
-
- White ninja
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 30 Sep 2014, 18:28
- Distribution: Porteus 3 KDE4, Slacko 5.7
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Bash bug
Post#40 by slack_distros_rock » 15 Oct 2014, 18:16
@ rava
I used the latest bashcheck and
Code: Select all
Variable function parser pre/suffixed [%%, upstream], bugs not exploitable
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6271 (original shellshock)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7169 (taviso bug)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-7186 (redir_stack bug)
Test for CVE-2014-7187 not reliable without address sanitizer
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6277 (lcamtuf bug #1)
Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-6278 (lcamtuf bug #2)
Wikipedia on Marshall McLuhan
slack_distros_rock
- Rava
- Contributor
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 02:46
- Distribution: XFCE 5.01 x86_64 + 4.0 i586
- Location: Forests of Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#41 by Rava » 16 Oct 2014, 11:33
Indeed, after restart I got the same result. Just could not post, my power supply went bonkers and I had to shut down the PC...

@neko
Could you please include the newest usm in your (x86-64 & x686) 001-core4.xzm?
Or do you - and all others - also include the usm-3.1.6-noarch-1.xzm module?
Yours Rava
Rava
- brokenman
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: 27 Dec 2010, 03:50
- Distribution: Porteus v4 all desktops
- Location: Brazil
Re: Bash bug
Post#42 by brokenman » 16 Oct 2014, 14:13
Wear your underpants on the outside and put on a cape.
brokenman
-
- DEV Team
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: 09 Feb 2013, 09:55
- Distribution: APorteus-FVWM-ja-x86_64.iso
- Location: japan
Re: Bash bug
Post#43 by neko » 16 Oct 2014, 16:30
usm-latest-0.0-noarch-1 of both 001-core4.xzms will be updated to usm-3.1.7.
Thanks.
@brokenman
Thank you for your good timing post.
neko
- Rava
- Contributor
- Posts: 5424
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 02:46
- Distribution: XFCE 5.01 x86_64 + 4.0 i586
- Location: Forests of Germany
Re: Bash bug
Post#44 by Rava » 16 Oct 2014, 19:31
So, sometime end of weekend, or beginning of next week, we will get core5.xzm with newest usm 3.1.7? Yay!

Yours Rava
Rava