Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: BUG IN APACHE HTTPD SERVER 2.0.47/48 (to who replied me)


From: Phan "Thái" Trung <trungonly () yahoo com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:01:28 -0800 (PST)

Hi William A. Rowe,
 
In my article, I supposed that the administrator
permit AllowOverride FileInfo, and you, supposed that
the admin restrict that. What happens if he permit
AllowOverride FileInfo?

The problem is, when I tested and looked at the source
code, if the 403 or other Error document placed
somewhere outside this current directory, it is not
parsed in the Deny From All URL (normally, Apache
wants). If the 403 doc placed in the current
directory, it can be parsed (unnormally, Apache may
not want).

We don't want to prevent this by going round,
re-configuring Apache in the other way, but by
ensuring that Apache works well in both cases, the 403
doc placed outside or inside the restricted directory.
 
Trung




--- "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe () rowe-clan net>
wrote:
Finally the gist of a very effective question:

Q. Should Apache require that the
.htaccess-permitted web content 
   allow the user to control the ErrorDocument
directive?

A. Yes, provided that AllowOverride FileInfo (or
AllowOverride All) is given
   in the httpd.conf file for the web content's
directory tree.


http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/core.html#allowoverride

   "FileInfo
    Allow use of the directives controlling document
types (...)"

Any administrator who would permit untrusted content
authors to use the
.htaccess file in such an open manner would be
foolish.  The examples
you are citing imply that the Administrator is
taking steps to lock down
the server.  The very FIRST thing such an
administrator would do would
be to restrict AllowOverride and ensure Options
FollowSymLinks is off.

I validated this behavior in httpd-2.0 and
apache-1.3 - and in both cases
the ErrorDocument directive is restricted to
AllowOverride FileInfo.

The report is based on the assumption that the
administrator went to only
half the effort to lock down the server, therefore
it's certainly not a bug
or hole in the Apache server, but in the
configuration you've proposed.

Yours,

Bill

At 03:58 AM 2/5/2004, Phan "Thái" Trung wrote:

Hi Reagan Blundell, Andre Malo, Rafael D'Avila...

Thanks for your comment. But let's think a bit more
carefully and reply to me your opnion. 

Suppose that the root *user set* a directory to
Deny From All, so in fact all web users should not
be able to get its content. But a *reseller user*
who has the right to modify the .htaccess file
(ErrorDocument), could let other *web users* get its
content via a 403 document, or at least get the 403
doc itself, which is placed in the same directory.
In this case, we do not need PHP. 

Answer me, it's a Apache feature, or a mistake of
Apache? 

Best Regards, 

Trung




Reagan Blundell <Reagan.Blundell () Centradia com>
wrote: 

I think it's a vuln, in fact I confirmed someones
for that. 
Then I post it into a bug-tracker list instead of
in a user 
support forum. Thanks for your comment.


The only reason it is a "vulnerability", is because
PHP allows a user to
read files from the system. This is completely
regardless of whatever
protections you have set up in Apache. If you don't
trust your users, then
allowing them to run PHP scripts is just plain
stupid. This is not a
security issue with apache. This is an
administrator not knowing the
consequences of giving users access to PHP.



Rafael D'Avila <rooter () terra com br> wrote: 
IMHO, there's no vulnerability here... if you trust
your users, and let them
execute some codes from inside the server, you are
only using a feature of
Apache, and have to be the responsibility if
someone execute dangerous
codes....

Only my 0.2 cents

Rafael D'Ãvila
(core_dumped () terra com br)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "André Malo" 
To: "langtuhaohoa caothuvolam" 
Cc: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: BUG IN APACHE HTTPD SERVER (current
version 2.0.47)


* langtuhaohoa caothuvolam wrote:

Deny From All: In this way they can access from
outside the server.

You mean: An attacker needs to place such a
script on the server, which
includes the requested uri.
If he's able to do so, he can

(a) read the file anyway
(b) simply open it from inside the script using
normal file operations.

I cannot see a vuln here. If he's able to take
the actions described
above,
one has *real* trouble on the server.

This seems to me the same topic as the mod_perl
hijacking. If you don't
trust
your users, don't let them execute code from
inside the server.

nd




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


Current thread: