Vulnerabilities > CVE-2009-3289 - Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource vulnerability in multiple products

047910
CVSS 7.8 - HIGH
Attack vector
LOCAL
Attack complexity
LOW
Privileges required
LOW
Confidentiality impact
HIGH
Integrity impact
HIGH
Availability impact
HIGH
local
low complexity
gnome
opensuse
suse
CWE-732
nessus

Summary

The g_file_copy function in glib 2.0 sets the permissions of a target file to the permissions of a symbolic link (777), which allows user-assisted local users to modify files of other users, as demonstrated by using Nautilus to modify the permissions of the user home directory.

Vulnerable Configurations

Part Description Count
Application
Gnome
1
OS
Opensuse
2
OS
Suse
1

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
    In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by the authorization framework, whose job it is to map ACLs to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application or can run queries for data that he is otherwise not supposed to.
  • Privilege Abuse
    An adversary is able to exploit features of the target that should be reserved for privileged users or administrators but are exposed to use by lower or non-privileged accounts. Access to sensitive information and functionality must be controlled to ensure that only authorized users are able to access these resources. If access control mechanisms are absent or misconfigured, a user may be able to access resources that are intended only for higher level users. An adversary may be able to exploit this to utilize a less trusted account to gain information and perform activities reserved for more trusted accounts. This attack differs from privilege escalation and other privilege stealing attacks in that the adversary never actually escalates their privileges but instead is able to use a lesser degree of privilege to access resources that should be (but are not) reserved for higher privilege accounts. Likewise, the adversary does not exploit trust or subvert systems - all control functionality is working as configured but the configuration does not adequately protect sensitive resources at an appropriate level.
  • Directory Indexing
    An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels
    An attacker exploits a weakness in the configuration of access controls and is able to bypass the intended protection that these measures guard against and thereby obtain unauthorized access to the system or network. Sensitive functionality should always be protected with access controls. However configuring all but the most trivial access control systems can be very complicated and there are many opportunities for mistakes. If an attacker can learn of incorrectly configured access security settings, they may be able to exploit this in an attack. Most commonly, attackers would take advantage of controls that provided too little protection for sensitive activities in order to perform actions that should be denied to them. In some circumstances, an attacker may be able to take advantage of overly restrictive access control policies, initiating denial of services (if an application locks because it unexpectedly failed to be granted access) or causing other legitimate actions to fail due to security. The latter class of attacks, however, is usually less severe and easier to detect than attacks based on inadequate security restrictions. This attack pattern differs from CAPEC 1, "Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs" in that the latter describes attacks where sensitive functionality lacks access controls, where, in this pattern, the access control is present, but incorrectly configured.

Nessus

  • NASL familySuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL idSUSE_11_0_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    descriptionThe when copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289).
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id46007
    published2010-04-27
    reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2010-2019 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/46007
    titleopenSUSE Security Update : glib2 (openSUSE-SU-2010:0155-1)
  • NASL familyMandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL idMANDRIVA_MDVSA-2009-245.NASL
    descriptionA vulnerability was discovered and corrected in glib2.0 : The g_file_copy function in glib 2.0 sets the permissions of a target file to the permissions of a symbolic link (777), which allows user-assisted local users to modify files of other users, as demonstrated by using Nautilus to modify the permissions of the user home directory (CVE-2009-3289). This update provides a solution to this vulnerability.
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id41619
    published2009-09-25
    reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2009-2019 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/41619
    titleMandriva Linux Security Advisory : glib2.0 (MDVSA-2009:245)
  • NASL familyUbuntu Local Security Checks
    NASL idUBUNTU_USN-841-1.NASL
    descriptionArand Nash discovered that applications linked to GLib (e.g. Nautilus) did not correctly copy symlinks. If a user copied symlinks with GLib, the symlink target files would become world-writable, allowing local attackers to gain access to potentially sensitive information. Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Ubuntu security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id42043
    published2009-10-06
    reporterUbuntu Security Notice (C) 2009-2019 Canonical, Inc. / NASL script (C) 2009-2018 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/42043
    titleUbuntu 8.04 LTS / 8.10 / 9.04 : glib2.0 vulnerability (USN-841-1)
  • NASL familySuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL idSUSE_11_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    descriptionWhen copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289). This has been fixed. This update also fixes a problem where glib2 couldn
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id50911
    published2010-12-02
    reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2010-2019 Tenable Network Security, Inc.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/50911
    titleSuSE 11 Security Update : glib2 (SAT Patch Number 1831)
  • NASL familySuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL idSUSE_11_1_GLIB2-100119.NASL
    descriptionThe when copying symbolic links the g_file_copy function set the target of the link to mode 0777 therefore exposing potentially sensitive information or allowing other user to modify files they should not have access to (CVE-2009-3289). This update also fixes a problem where glib2 couldn
    last seen2020-06-01
    modified2020-06-02
    plugin id46010
    published2010-04-27
    reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2010-2019 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.
    sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/46010
    titleopenSUSE Security Update : glib2 (openSUSE-SU-2010:0156-1)

Seebug

bulletinFamilyexploit
descriptionCVE ID: CVE-2009-3289 GLib是GTK+和GNOME工程的基础底层核心程序库,是一个综合用途的轻量级的C程序库。 glib库g_file_copy函数将目标文件的权限设置为了符号链接的权限(777),这允许本地用户修改其他用户的文件。 GNOME glib 2.0 厂商补丁: GNOME ----- 目前厂商还没有提供补丁或者升级程序,我们建议使用此软件的用户随时关注厂商的主页以获取最新版本: http://www.gnome.org/
idSSV:12388
last seen2017-11-19
modified2009-09-23
published2009-09-23
reporterRoot
titleGNOME glib库g_file_copy函数不安全文件权限设置漏洞

Statements

contributorJoshua Bressers
lastmodified2009-09-23
organizationRed Hat
statementNot vulnerable. This issue does not affect the versions of glib2 as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, or 5.