IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
o CVE-2018-10858 (Insufficient input validation on client directory
listing in libsmbclient.)
o CVE-2018-10919 (Confidential attribute disclosure from the AD LDAP
server.)
Signed-off-by: Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
o CVE-2018-10858 (Insufficient input validation on client directory
listing in libsmbclient.)
o CVE-2018-10919 (Confidential attribute disclosure from the AD LDAP
server.)
Signed-off-by: Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
The acl_read.c code contains a special case to allow dirsync to
work-around having insufficient access rights. We had a concern that
the dirsync module could leak sensitive information for deleted objects.
This patch adds a test-case to prove whether or not this is happening.
The new test case is similar to the existing dirsync test except:
- We make the confidential attribute also preserve-on-delete, so it
hangs around for deleted objcts. Because the attributes now persist
across test case runs, I've used a different attribute to normal.
(Technically, the dirsync search expressions are now specific enough
that the regular attribute could be used, but it would make things
quite fragile if someone tried to add a new test case).
- To handle searching for deleted objects, the search expressions are
now more complicated. Currently dirsync adds an extra-filter to the
'!' searches to exclude deleted objects, i.e. samaccountname matches
the test-objects AND the object is not deleted. We now extend this to
include deleted objects with lastKnownParent equal to the test OU.
The search expression matches either case so that we can use the same
expression throughout the test (regardless of whether the object is
deleted yet or not).
This test proves that the dirsync corner-case does not actually leak
sensitive information on Samba. This is due to a bug in the dirsync
code - when the buggy line is removed, this new test promptly fails.
Test also passes against Windows.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
A user that doesn't have access to view an attribute can still guess the
attribute's value via repeated LDAP searches. This affects confidential
attributes, as well as ACLs applied to an object/attribute to deny
access.
Currently the code will hide objects if the attribute filter contains an
attribute they are not authorized to see. However, the code still
returns objects as results if confidential attribute is in the search
expression itself, but not in the attribute filter.
To fix this problem we have to check the access rights on the attributes
in the search-tree, as well as the attributes returned in the message.
Points of note:
- I've preserved the existing dirsync logic (the dirsync module code
suppresses the result as long as the replPropertyMetaData attribute is
removed). However, there doesn't appear to be any test that highlights
that this functionality is required for dirsync.
- To avoid this fix breaking the acl.py tests, we need to still permit
searches like 'objectClass=*', even though we don't have Read Property
access rights for the objectClass attribute. The logic that Windows
uses does not appear to be clearly documented, so I've made a best
guess that seems to mirror Windows behaviour.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
This better reflects the special case we're making for dirsync, and gets
rid of a 'if-else' clause.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Flip the dirsync check (to avoid a double negative), and use a helper
boolean variable.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
So we can re-use the same logic laster for checking the search-ops.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
An 'Object Access Allowed' ACE that assigned 'Control Access' (CR)
rights to a specific attribute would not actually grant access.
What was happening was the remaining_access mask for the object_tree
nodes would be Read Property (RP) + Control Access (CR). The ACE mapped
to the schemaIDGUID for a given attribute, which would end up being a
child node in the tree. So the CR bit was cleared for a child node, but
not the rest of the tree. We would then check the user had the RP access
right, which it did. However, the RP right was cleared for another node
in the tree, which still had the CR bit set in its remaining_access
bitmap, so Samba would not grant access.
Generally, the remaining_access only ever has one bit set, which means
this isn't a problem normally. However, in the Control Access case there
are 2 separate bits being checked, i.e. RP + CR.
One option to fix this problem would be to clear the remaining_access
for the tree instead of just the node. However, the Windows spec is
actually pretty clear on this: if the ACE has a CR right present, then
you can stop any further access checks.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
It is perfectly legal to search LDAP for an attribute that is not part
of the schema. That part of the query should simply not match.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Currently Samba is a bit disclosive with LDB_OP_PRESENT (i.e.
attribute=*) searches compared to Windows.
All the acl.py tests are based on objectClass=* searches, where Windows
will happily tell a user about objects they have List Contents rights,
but not Read Property rights for. However, if you change the attribute
being searched for, suddenly the objects are no longer visible on
Windows (whereas they are on Samba).
This is a problem, because Samba can tell you about which objects have
confidential attributes, which in itself could be disclosive.
This patch adds a acl.py test-case that highlights this behaviour. The
test passes against Windows but fails against Samba.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Adds tests that assert that a confidential attribute cannot be guessed
by an unprivileged user through wildcard DB searches.
The tests basically consist of a set of DB searches/assertions that
get run for:
- basic searches against a confidential attribute
- confidential attributes that get overridden by giving access to the
user via an ACE (run against a variety of ACEs)
- protecting a non-confidential attribute via an ACL that denies read-
access (run against a variety of ACEs)
- querying confidential attributes via the dirsync controls
These tests all pass when run against a Windows Dc and all fail against
a Samba DC.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Reading the spec and then reading the code makes sense, but we could
comment the code more so it makes sense on its own.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Object-specific access checks refer to a specific section of the
MS-ADTS, and the code closely matches the spec. We need to extend this
logic to properly handle the Control-Access Right (CR), so it makes
sense to split the logic out into its own function.
This patch just moves the code, and should not alter the logic (apart
from ading in the boolean grant_access return variable.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13434
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13453
CVE-2018-10858: Insufficient input validation on client directory
listing in libsmbclient.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13453
CVE-2018-10858: Insufficient input validation on client directory
listing in libsmbclient.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
This will send an unfixed smbd into the
SMB_ASSERT(op->request_count > 0);
in smbd_smb2_request_reply_update_counts
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Apr 12 14:38:39 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit 40edd1bc273f664d5567ef5be169033899acee1f)
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Thu Apr 12 21:56:31 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
If a session expires during a compound request chain,
we exit smbd_smb2_request_dispatch() with
'return smbd_smb2_request_error(req, ...)' before
calling smbd_smb2_request_dispatch_update_counts().
As req->request_counters_updated was only reset
within smbd_smb2_request_dispatch_update_counts(),
smbd_smb2_request_reply_update_counts() was called
twice on the same request, which triggers
SMB_ASSERT(op->request_count > 0);
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 87e25cd1e45bfe57292b62ffc44ddafc01c61ca0)
smbd_smb2_flush_recv() expects nterror in tevent_req, and otherwise
aborts in tevent_req_is_nterror()
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13338
Signed-off-by: Anton Nefedov <anton.nefedov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 98623129446672521b7fa41d3457b8ce95db828c)
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13297
Pair-Programmed-With: Anoop C S <anoopcs@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Poornima G <pgurusid@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Guenther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Günther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Feb 26 20:17:50 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit 46e6626f73f42c84f254507c3ec2b591e2e732ba)
HPUX has this problem.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13270
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Feb 23 22:56:35 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit 5ad5e7966f555b1d2b39d276646934a2cd2535e6)
Thanks to Isaac Boukris <iboukris@gmail.com> for finding the
issue and testing this fix.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13244
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Jan 26 02:25:20 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
(cherry picked from commit e7425bd5245ffea68b7e8f794c9b5f864d103769)
Confirmed to pass against Windows 2012 R2.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13206
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 2e49a97777ebf5bffbeadca03517b4a21bca24c0)
Autobuild-User(v4-6-test): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-6-test): Tue Mar 20 21:20:00 CET 2018 on sn-devel-144
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13206
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit e039e9b0d2a16b21ace019b028e5c8244486b8a3)
cli_credentials_get_principal() returns NULL in that case.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13206
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 0786a65cabb92a812cf1c692d0d26914f74a6f87)
CVE-2018-1050 (Denial of Service Attack on external print server.)
CVE-2018-1057 (Authenticated users can change other users' password.)
Signed-off-by: Karolin Seeger <kseeger@samba.org>
This is not strictly needed to fig bug 13272, but it makes sense to also
fix this while fixing the overall ACL checking logic.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This is used to pass information about which password change operation (change
or reset) the acl module validated, down to the password_hash module.
It's very important that both modules treat the request identical.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Will be used to pass "user password change" vs "password reset" from the
ACL to the password_hash module, ensuring both modules treat the request
identical.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This is needed, because a later commit will let the acl module add a
control to the change request msg and we must ensure that this is only
done once.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
This change ensures we correctly treat the following LDIF
dn: cn=testuser,cn=users,...
changetype: modify
delete: userPassword
add: userPassword
userPassword: thatsAcomplPASS1
as a password reset. Because delete and add element counts are both
one, the ACL module wrongly treated this as a password change
request.
For a password change we need at least one value to delete and one value
to add. This patch ensures we correctly check attributes and their
values.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Note that the request using the clearTextPassword attribute for the
password change is already correctly rejected by the server.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13272
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
