Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Local privilege escalation via execve()

freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#31

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

loeg wrote: post #15
cyberpunk wrote: post #6

This is from April 28th, it was patched in 15.0R-p7.

[flagged]

I think cperciva may have been a touch overenthusiastic, but surely this is in fact proving his point? His claim was, as you note before trying to ignore it, about coordination. When one of the recent Linux LPEs broke, the fix wasn't in distro packages yet; there was a vulnerability that users couldn't practically do anything about. This is an LPE that is fixed in the binaries that have already shipped. If I was playing cheerleader, this is exactly the case I'd use to argue that FreeBSD being a single unified system is a win and that its approach to handing security problems is very on top of things.

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#32

Post by mrln »

cyberpunk wrote: post #11
epcoa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone relying on a 30+ year old monolith kernel written in C to not have some exploitable LPEs lurking should stay in basket weaving and out of sysadmin.

Yep. You should treat any system where non-admins regularly login as basically insecure/owned and rig your architecture appropriately. TBH -- I don't have any of these kinds of boxes anymore. Who is really running anything like this in 2026 and for what purpose?

Not necessarily FreeBSD, but for Linux this applies to most universities with a CS program, I think.

The systems should be cut off from sensitive administrative data, but a malicious student would at the very least have access to the other students' data with an LPE.

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#36

Post by cyberpunk »

icedchai wrote: post #30
stackghost wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A not-insignificant chunk of the userbase of the various BSDs is there because they were turned off of Linux after controversial things like Gnome 3, systemd being shoved down users' throats despite being a broken mess, wayland (though nobody was as arrogant about wayland as Poettering was about systemd), etc. All that to say, the BSD userbase as a sizeable subset that are there for countercultural reasons, rather th…

I also use a mix. I moved to FreeBSD initially after a rough period w/Linux in the late 90's. Today, my FreeBSD machines are all VMs running on Linux hosts!

Hah I'm your mirror version -- my linux machines are all VMs running on FreeBSD hosts!

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#37

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

epcoa wrote: post #4
itsthefrank wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> V. Solution > Upgrade your vulnerable system to a supported FreeBSD stable or release / security branch (releng) dated after the correction date, and reboot the system. Not everyone can just freebsd-update and reboot, so yes, "Oh dear." is a good response to this.

Anyone relying on a 30+ year old monolith kernel written in C to not have some exploitable LPEs lurking should stay in basket weaving and out of sysadmin.

...as opposed to what, exactly? Linux is a 34 y.o. monolithic kernel in C, the BSDs are all forked from the same base (386BSD) of around the same age, XNU is 29 years old (and also heavily based on BSD code while also throwing in mach code) in C and other languages,...

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#38

Post by [deleted] »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #29
stackghost wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A not-insignificant chunk of the userbase of the various BSDs is there because they were turned off of Linux after controversial things like Gnome 3, systemd being shoved down users' throats despite being a broken mess, wayland (though nobody was as arrogant about wayland as Poettering was about systemd), etc. All that to say, the BSD userbase as a sizeable subset that are there for countercultural reasons, rather th…

The person 'bragging' was not a countercultural user, but rather the FreeBSD engineering lead. They were, however, talking about FreeBSD's response to security vulnerabilities, in contrast to Linux's response. > thus not immune from the types of bugs that stem from that lineage They never claimed that FreeBSD didn't have vulnerabilities. I honestly have no idea why grandparent decided to bring up their comment when i…

[deleted]

Re: Local privilege escalation via execve()

#39

Post by wswin »

itsthefrank wrote: post #9
epcoa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone relying on a 30+ year old monolith kernel written in C to not have some exploitable LPEs lurking should stay in basket weaving and out of sysadmin.

Not sure why the snark but if people are running FreeBSD then they should be...basket weaving instead of using it? Yes, the correct solution is to patch and reboot but not everyone is in a place to jump and do that which is why a temp workaround, if possible, would be welcome

I think good system should be prepared to do a reboot in a short notice. Even some long running jobs can have a pause mechanism.
Post reply on HN