-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OSSEC-HIDS Security Audit Findings #1821
Comments
Another note: I did not file bugs related to algorithmic complexity/DOS. There are a few places where ossec-analysisd is doing O(N) work for attacker controlled N and can be made to consume a lot of CPU/processing time. If you are interested in fixing this class of bug I can file an additional issue or two. |
👋 Small update: I've opened pull requests to address the bugs I feel confident fixing myself.
As a bonus I opened another small PR to fix a The ones I haven't addressed:
|
I've updated the issue description to reflect which of the bugs are fixed in master.
I completed the CVE request forms today and will update relevant issues when CVEs are assigned. |
Looks like the CVE's are assigned now, I'd like to get the CVE's associated with the issue ID's here so I can align those up with the 3.6 changelog entries. Thanks for the hard work here! |
Done ☑️ |
Hi folks,
I spent some free time recently auditing OSSEC. I was primarily focused on a threat model where an OSSEC agent is compromised (e.g. the agent key and assoc. counters are known) and used to attack the OSSEC server (primarily
ossec-remoted
andossec-analysisd
). Given the problem domain of OSSEC and HIDS generally I think this is fair game. Since these are post-auth bugs and there isn't guidance on vulnerability disclosure in the README I thought it was acceptable to post information full-disclosure to the repo.I found a handful of bugs and have done my best to address the root cause, the affected versions, the impact and potential fixes in the issues I've filed. I will request CVEs for the security relevant bugs later on.
In terms of rough risk levels I'd categorize the findings as follows:
Informational:
Low:
analysisd-syscheck-decoder-off-by-one-read - syscheck decoder: off-by-one heap overflow in DB operations. #1819(Edit: I made a mistake in my analysis here, it's not a bug).Med:
High:
Some caveats/context to add:
If you would be interested in trying to adopt fuzzing as part of your CI (or as an integration with oss-fuzz, etc) I'd be happy to try and provide some notes but likely don't have the resources to implement it myself to a merge-able standard of work.
Thanks! You can close this top-level issue as you see appropriate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: