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.
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>
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>
This ensures we fail with a good error code before an eventual ldb_dn_get_casefold() which
would otherwise fail.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
ldb_dn_from_ldb_val() does not validate this untrusted input, so a later
call to ldb_dn_get_casefold() can fail if the input is not valid.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Signed-off-by: Andrej Gessel <Andrej.Gessel@janztec.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
This fixes a regression that came in via 00db3aba6c.
Found by Vivek Das <vdas@redhat.com> (Red Hat QE).
In order to demonstrate simply run:
smbclient //server/share -U user%password -mNT1 -c quit \
--option="client ntlmv2 auth"=no \
--option="client use spnego"=no
against a server that uses "ntlm auth = ntlmv2-only" (our default
setting).
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13360
CVE-2018-1139: Weak authentication protocol allowed.
Guenther
Pair-Programmed-With: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Guenther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Right now, this test will succeed.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13360
CVE-2018-1139: Weak authentication protocol allowed.
Guenther
Signed-off-by: Guenther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13360
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
While chasing a bug in g_lock (not in master) I saw some opportunity to
simplify g_lock_trylock a bit. This is array handling, and array
handling is just extremely error-prone. This *might* be a little less
efficient or large numbers of READ locks, but this remains to be
seen. For now, simplify the code.
First, we make two passes now: One to remove ourselves, and the other
one to search for conflicts. Mixing up both made it pretty hard for me
to follow the code.
Second, I've removed the _mylock and mylock pointer/struct logic and
replaced it with the "mylock.pid.pid != 0 ? &mylock : NULL" when calling
g_lock_store. To me, this focuses the logic whether to add ourselves in
one place instead of spreading it around in the whole routine.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Aug 14 11:42:10 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
If we try to G_LOCK_READ while a G_LOCK_WRITE is active, we do the
serverid_exists call twice. Avoid that.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Previously the only test was to load these modules to trigger the
smb_vfs_assert_all_fns check. As these modules just pass through the
calls, they can be loaded for all tests to ensure that the codepaths are
exercised. This would have found the problem in
smb_time_audit_offload_read_recv.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13568
Signed-off-by: Christof Schmitt <cs@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Aug 13 22:35:20 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Found by covscan.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13567
Pair-Programmed-With: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Sat Aug 11 04:43:15 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Found by covsan.
error[invalidScanfFormatWidth]: Width 128 given in format string (no. 2)
is larger than destination buffer 'sid_string[128]', use %127s to
prevent overflowing it.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13567
Pair-Programmed-With: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Found by covscan.
A candidate to use tallac ...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13567
Pair-Programmed-With: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13204
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Aug 10 21:08:14 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
The current implementation of `rmdir` hopes to get the directory deleted
on closing last open handle when FILE_DELETE_ON_CLOSE is set on it. But
for non-empty directories Windows doesn't error out during an open call.
Following that we internally refuse to set initial delete_on_close while
opening a non-empty directory. This prevents us from trying to delete
the directory when last open handle is closed.
Instead of relying on FILE_DELETE_ON_CLOSE during an open we explicitly
set delete_on_close token on directory handle once it is available. This
ensures that NT_STATUS_DIRECTORY_NOT_EMPTY is returned for `rmdir` on
non-empty directories while closing open directory handle.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13204
Signed-off-by: Anoop C S <anoopcs@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Under some circumstances the samba-tool command is failing with no
stdout output at all, leaving few clues in the logs.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Autobuild-User(master): Douglas Bagnall <dbagnall@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Aug 10 09:27:03 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Signed-off-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Aug 10 05:36:19 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13563
Signed-off-by: Noel Power <noel.power@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Aug 10 02:43:33 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andreas Schneider <asn@cryptomilk.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Aug 9 19:57:02 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Kill the ctdb_mutex_ceph_rados_helper with SIGKILL and then confirm
that the lock is automatically released following expiry.
Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Samuel Cabrero <scabrero@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Autobuild-User(master): David Disseldorp <ddiss@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Aug 9 16:26:36 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
RADOS locks without expiry persist indefinitely. This results in CTDB
deadlock during failover if the recovery master dies unexpectedly, as
subsequently elected recovery master nodes can't obtain the recovery
lock.
Avoid deadlock by using a lock expiration time (10s by default), and
renewing it periodically.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13540
Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Samuel Cabrero <scabrero@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
In preparation for adding a lock refresh timer.
Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Samuel Cabrero <scabrero@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
