...
The meaning of "appropriate privileges" varies from platform to platform. For example, on Solaris, appropriate privileges for setuid()
means that the PRIV_PROC_SETID
privilege is in the effective privilege set of the process. On BSD, it means that the effective user ID (EUID) is zero (that is, the process is running as root) or that uid=geteuid()
. On Linux, it means that the process has CAP_SETUID
capability and that setuid(geteuid())
will fail if the effective user ID (EUID) the EUID is not equal to 0, the real user ID (RUID), or the saved set-user - ID (SSUID).
Because of this complex behavior, there may be cases where the desired privilege drops are unsuccessfulsometimes may fail. For example, the range of Linux Kernel versions (2.2.0-20–2.2.15) is vulnerable to an insufficient privilege attack wherein setuid(getuid())
did not drop privileges as expected when the capability bits were set to zero. As a precautionary measure, subtle behavior and error conditions for the targeted implementation must be carefully noted.
...
This noncompliant code example compiles cleanly on most POSIX systems, but no explicit checks have been checks are made to ensure that privilege relinquishment has succeeded. This may be dangerous depending on the sequence of the preceding privilege changes.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
/* Temporarily drop privileges */
if (seteuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with lower privileges */
if (need_more_privileges) {
/* Restore privileges */
if (seteuid(0) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
}
/* ... */
/* Permanently drop privileges */
if (setuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/*
* Code intended to run with lower privileges,
* but if privilege relinquishment failed,
* attacker can regain elevated privileges!
*/
|
If the program is run as a setuid root program, over time, the state of the UID
s UIDs might look like the following:
Description | Code | EUID | RUID | SSUID |
---|
Program startup |
0 |
User | 0 |
Temporary drop |
|
User |
User | 0 |
Restore |
| 0 |
User | 0 |
Permanent drop |
|
User |
User |
User |
Restore (attacker) |
|
User |
User |
User |
If the program fails to restore privileges, it will be unable to permanently drop them later:
Description | Code | EUID | RUID | SSUID |
---|---|---|---|---|
program startup |
0 |
User | 0 |
Temporary drop |
|
User |
User | 0 |
Restore |
|
User |
User | 0 |
Permanent drop |
|
User |
User | 0 |
Restore (attacker) |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
Compliant Solution
This compliant solution was implemented in sendmail, a popular mail transfer agent, to determine if superuser privileges were successfully dropped [Wheeler 2003]. If the setuid()
call succeeds after (supposedly) dropping privileges permanently, then the privileges were not dropped as intended.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
/* Temporarily drop privileges */
if (seteuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with lower privileges */
if (need_more_privileges) {
/* Restore Privileges */
if (seteuid(0) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
}
/* ... */
/* Permanently drop privileges */
if (setuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
if (setuid(0) != -1) {
/* Privileges can be restored, handle error */
}
/*
* Code intended to run with lower privileges;
* attacker cannot regain elevated privileges
*/
|
...
A better solution is to ensure that proper privileges exist before attempting to carry out to perform a permanent drop.:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
/* Store the privileged ID for later verification */
uid_t privid = geteuid();
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
/* Temporarily drop privileges */
if (seteuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with lower privileges */
if (need_more_privileges) {
/* Restore Privileges */
if (seteuid(privid) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
/* Code intended to run with elevated privileges */
}
/* ... */
/* Restore privileges if needed */
if (geteuid() != privid) {
if (seteuid(privid) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
}
/* Permanently drop privileges */
if (setuid(getuid()) != 0) {
/* Handle error */
}
if (setuid(0) != -1) {
/* Privileges can be restored, handle error */
}
/*
* Code intended to run with lower privileges;
* attacker cannot regain elevated privileges
*/
|
...
A process may have a number of supplementary group IDs, in addition to its effective group ID, and the supplementary groups can allow privileged access to files. The getgroups()
function returns an array which that contains the supplementary group IDs and can also contain the effective group ID. The setgroups()
function can set the supplementary group IDs and can also set the effective group ID on some systems. Using setgroups()
usually requires privileges. While Although POSIX defines the getgroups()
function, it does not define setgroups()
.
Under normal circumstances, setuid()
and related calls do not alter the supplementary group IDs. However, a setuid-root program can alter its supplementary group IDs and then relinquish root privileges, in which case, it maintains the supplementary group IDs but lacks the privilege necessary to relinquish them. Consequently, it is recommended that a program immediately relinquish supplementary group IDs before relinquishing root privileges.
Rule POS36-C. Observe correct revocation order while relinquishing privileges discusses how to drop supplementary group IDs. To ensure that supplementary group IDs are indeed relinquished, you can use the following eql_sups
function:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
/* Returns nonzero if the two group lists are equivalent (taking into
account that the lists may differ wrt the egid */
int eql_sups(const int cursups_size, const gid_t* const cursups_list,
const int targetsups_size, const gid_t* const targetsups_list) {
int i;
int j;
const int n = targetsups_size;
const int diff = cursups_size - targetsups_size;
const gid_t egid = getegid();
if (diff > 1 || diff < 0 ) {
return 0;
}
for (i=0, j=0; i < n; i++, j++) {
if (cursups_list[j] != targetsups_list[i]) {
if (cursups_list[j] == egid) {
i--; /* skipping j */
} else {
return 0;
}
}
}
/* If reached here, we're sure i==targetsups_size. Now, either
j==cursups_size (skipped the egid or it wasn't there), or we didn't
get to the egid yet because it's the last entry in cursups */
return j == cursups_size ||
(j+1 == cursups_size && cursups_list[j] == egid);
}
|
...
Processes on Linux have two additional values called fsuid
and fsgid
. These values indicate the privileges used when accessing files on the file system. These values They normally shadow the effective user ID and effective group ID, but the setfsuid()
and setfsgid()
functions allow them to be changed. Since Because changes to the euid
and egid
normally also apply to fsuid
and fsgid
, a program relinquishing root privileges needs need not be concerned with setting fsuid
or fsgid
to safe values. However, there has been at least one kernel bug that violated this invariant ([Chen 2002] and [Tsafrir 2008]). Consequently, a prudent program will check checks that fsuid
and fsgid
have harmless values after relinquishing privileges.
...
If privilege relinquishment conditions are left unchecked, any flaw in the program may lead to unintended system compromise corresponding to the more privileged user or group account.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
POS37-C | high | probable | low | P18 | L1 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|
Astrée |
| user_defined | Soundly supported | ||||||
Axivion Bauhaus Suite |
| CertC-POS37 | |||||||
Helix QAC |
| DF4876, DF4877, DF4878 | |||||||
Klocwork |
|
SV. |
SV.USAGERULES.PERMISSIONS
USAGERULES.PERMISSIONS | |||||||||
Parasoft C/C++test |
| CERT_C-POS37-a | Ensure that privilege relinquishment is successful | ||||||
| CERT C: Rule POS37-C | Checks for priviledge drop not verified (rule fully covered) |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
Key here (explains table format and definitions)
Taxonomy | Taxonomy item | Relationship |
---|---|---|
ISO/IEC |
...
...
MITRE CWE: CWE-250, "Execution with Unnecessary Privileges"
...
Privilege Sandbox Issues |
...
[XYO] | Prior to 2018-01-12: CERT: Unspecified Relationship |
CWE 2.11 |
...
Failure to check whether privileges were dropped successfully | 2017-07-07: CERT: Exact |
Bibliography
[Chen 2002] | "Setuid Demystified" |
[Dowd 2006] | Chapter 9, "Unix I: Privileges and Files" |
[Open Group 2004] | setuid() |
...
...
seteuid() | |
[Tsafrir 2008] | "The Murky Issue of Changing Process Identity: Revising 'Setuid Demystified'" |
[Wheeler 2003] | Section 7.4, "Minimize Privileges" |
...