CVE-2013-4394

aka Keybord Locale Injection

CVE: CVE-2013-4394
CWE: 159
ipc:
  note: Directly - most likely not. But if the person can elevate their privileges
    through these means than perhaps it may be used to do so.
  answer: false
  question: |
    Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
    communication? IPC includes OS signals, pipes, stdin/stdout, message
    passing, and clipboard. Writing to files that another program in this
    software system reads is another form of IPC.
    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
bugs:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862324
- https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725357
i18n:
  note: This feature uses X Keyboard Extension (XKB) to introduce locales for different
    regional keyboard types/makes/models/languages to the system.
  answer: true
  question: |
    Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
    (i18n)?
    An internationalization feature is one that enables people from all
    over the world to use the system. This includes translations, locales,
    typography, unicode, or various other features.
    Answer should be true or false
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
vccs:
- note: Refactoring and additions to code - unrelated to problem
  commit: 7640a5de1b3ffe6547200ad204d14e4f067caf4f
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 1dfa7e79a60de680086b1d93fcc3629b463f58bd
- note: Introduced the method that deals with variable vc_keymap. Introduces the problem
    to system.
  commit: 1822350db15b089f094a6dbd2469842ab42c1d87
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: d200735e13c52dcfe36c0e066f9f6c2fbfb85a9c
- note: uses the state of the keymap to access more functionality - furthering the
    problem
  commit: 89f134406af6a4b4c7493f624a89dcd654b48e81
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 6091827530d6dd43479d6709fb6e9f745c11e900
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 25ea79fe0756c3c46a16c0c19bf3380a30382a1c
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 825c6fe5eb362437aa46faa52b683a62eede9a13
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 87d2c1ff6a7375f03476767e6f59454bcc5cd04b
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 4b8772bf5f2887aa2bdb74efa2f5dfd40fff946d
fixes:
- note: Based on patch mentioned in https://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=0b507b17a760b21e33fc52ff377db6aa5086c680
  commit: 0b507b17a760b21e33fc52ff377db6aa5086c680
- note: Based on patch mentioned in https://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=8d789b905dba8aebd30238520b6ad52fb866af95
  commit: 8d789b905dba8aebd30238520b6ad52fb866af95
vouch:
  note: I did not see anyone commenting on how the problem was fixed or any vouching.
  answer: false
  question: "Was there any part of the fix that involved one person vouching for \nanother's
    work?\nThis can include:\n  * signing off on a commit message\n  * mentioning
    a discussion with a colleague checking the work\n  * upvoting a solution on a
    pull request\nAnswer must be true or false.\nWrite a note about how you came to
    the conclusions you did, regardless of what your answer was.\n"
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: It is debatable whether the conditional for checking was actually required
      or not. Considering the fix was to remove the check (removing the conditional)
      it may have never been required to get the functionality required.
    applies: true
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?
    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.
    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.
    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: There should always be checks for vectorized inputs and introduce sanitizations
      for instances such as this. Distrust all input going in especially with a system
      such as this.
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews: []
sandbox:
  note: This vulnerability was introduced through the means of vectors and injection
  answer: false
  question: "Did this vulnerability violate a sandboxing feature that the system\nprovides?
    \nA sandboxing feature is one that allows files, users, or other features \nlimited
    access. Vulnerabilities that violate sandboxes are usually based on \naccess control,
    checking privileges incorrectly, path traversal, and the \nlike.\nAnswer should
    be true or false\nWrite a note about how you came to the conclusions you did,
    regardless of\nwhat your answer was.\n"
upvotes: 13
CWE_note: Involves not properlyfiltering, removing, quoting or managing special elements
  (vectors)
mistakes:
  answer: |-
    The main mistake made was one of execution and how input is handled. This specific type is a planning error. An assumption is that there was originally no reason to check for input at this stage in development considering the choices were to pick keyboard locales. Along with this, it is believed that the team may have not expected vectors to be used to gain access to the system further within this location.
    One thing to consider as well, is the lack of unit tests. It is evident that tests for the function exist but there are no checks or assertions for vectors at this level.
    The fix is interesting as it was the deletion of a small code block. It proves that simplicity can have large impacts on bigger projects such as systemd. Both good and bad.
  question: "In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made
    that\nled to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?\nMaintainability?
    Requirements? Miscommunications?\nThere can, and usually are, many mistakes behind
    a vulnerability.\nRemember that mistakes can come in many forms:\n* slip: failing
    to complete a properly planned step due to inattention\n          e.g. wrong key
    in the ignition\n          e.g. using < instead of <=\n* lapse: failing to complete
    a properly planned step due to memory failure\n          e.g. forgetting to put
    car in reverse before backing up\n          e.g. forgetting to check null\n* planning
    error: error that occurs when the plan is inadequate\n          e.g. getting stuck
    in traffic because you didn’t consider the \n               impact of the bridge
    closing\n          e.g. calling the wrong method\n          e.g. using a poor
    design\nThese are grey areas, of course. But do your best to analyze the mistakes
    \naccording to this framework.\nLook at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and
    examine the mitigations\nthey have written there. Are they doing those? Does the
    fix look proper?\nWrite a thoughtful entry here that people in the software engineering\nindustry
    would find interesting.\n"
nickname: Keybord Locale Injection
subsystem:
  name: vconsole
  note: Seems to mostly be based around xkb
  question: "What subsystems was the mistake in? These are subsystems WITHIN systemd\nTwo
    areas to look:\n  - Bug labels\n  - Directory names\nLook at the path of the source
    code files code that were fixed to get\ndirectory names. Look at comments in the
    code. Look at the bug reports how\nthe bug report was tagged. \nExample systemd
    subsystems are:\n  * fsck\n  * apparmor\n  * fstab\n  * sd-daemon\nName should
    be:\n  * all lowercase English letters\n  * NOT a specific file\n  * can have
    digits, and _-@/\nCan be multiple subsystems involved, in which case you can make
    it an array\ne.g.\n    name: [\"subsystemA\", \"subsystemB\"] # ok\n    name:
    subsystemA # also ok\n"
discovered:
  answer: The vulnerability was discovered on or before 2012-10-02 by Florian Weimer,
    Red Hat Security Team.
  contest: false
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?
    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.
    The automated, contest, and developer flags can be true, false, or nil.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please
    explain where you looked.
  automated: false
  developer: true
discussion:
  note: There was no real discussion regarding this problem it was noticed, and fixed
    quite fast. The only real mention for this problem was that it was addressed in
    the newest version of Fedora. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862324#c12
  question: "Was there any discussion surrounding this?\nA discussion can include
    debates, disputes, or polite talk about how to \nresolve uncertainty.\nExample
    include:\n  * Is this out of our scope?\n  * Is this a security?\n  * How should
    we fix this?\nJust because you see multiple comments doesn't mean it's a discussion.
    \nFor example:\n  * \"Fix line 10\". \"Ok\" is not what we call a discussion\n
    \ * \"Ping\" (reminding people)\nCheck the bugs reports, pull requests, and mailing
    lists archives.\nThese answers should be boolean.\n  discussed_as_security: true
    or false\n  any_discussion: true or false\nPut any links to disagreements you
    found in the notes section, or any other\ncomment you want to make.\n"
  any_discussion: false
  discussed_as_security: false
stacktrace:
  note: None of the bug reports had stacktraces
  question: "Are there any stacktraces in the bug reports? \nSecondly, if there is
    a stacktrace, is the fix in the same file that the \nstacktrace points to? \nIf
    there are no stacktraces, then both of these are false - but be sure to\nmention
    where you checked in the note.\nAnswer must be true or false.\nWrite a note about
    how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of\nwhat your answer was.\n"
  any_stacktraces: false
  stacktrace_with_fix: false
description: A function within systemd existed for selecting keyboard locales. When
  accessed by the administrative authentication function to change a particular privilege,
  it could be intercepted to allow all local users in the group the ability to elevate
  their privilege through the usage of vectors.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?
    For code: and fix: - your answer should be boolean.
    For the code_answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix in related directories and determine if and was there were
    unit tests involved for this subsystem.
    For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
  fix_answer: There is no evidence to suggest that the current and previous tests
    regarding keymap utils exist to test against an override like the CVE promoted.
  code_answer: In the commits within the timeframe, it is apparent that there are
    automated unit tests being created and conducted. Most of which are related to
    the parent function where the problem stems from but nothing that tests or fixes
    the actual CVE.
reported_date: '2012-10-12'
specification:
  note: No mention in any of the listed places.
  answer: false
  instructions: |
    Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example, the POSIX
    spec, an RFC spec, a network protocol spec, or some other requirements
    specification.
    Be sure to check the following artifacts for this:
      * bug reports
      * security advisories
      * commit message
      * pull request
      * mailing lists
      * anything else
    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
announced_date: '2013-10-28'
curation_level: 1
published_date: '2013-10-28'
forgotten_check:
  note: The problem was solved by removing an entire conditional statement
  answer: false
  question: "Does the fix for the vulnerability involve adding a forgotten check?\nA
    \"forgotten check\" can mean many things. It often manifests as the fix \ninserting
    an entire if-statement or a conditional to an existing \nif-statement. Or a call
    to a method that checks something.\nExample of checks can include:\n  * null pointer
    checks\n  * check the current role, e.g. root\n  * boundary checks for a number\n
    \ * consult file permissions\n  * check a return value\nAnswer must be true or
    false.\nWrite a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless
    of\nwhat your answer was.\n"
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
  entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
  https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/699.html for the Software Development
  view of the vulnerabilities. We also recommend the tool
  http://www.cwevis.org/viz to help see how the classifications work.
  If you have anything to note about why you classified it this way, write
  something in CWE_note. This field is optional.
  Just the number here is fine. No need for name or CWE prefix. If more than one
  apply here, then place them in an array like this
    CWE: ["123", "456"] # this is ok
    CWE: [123, 456]     # also ok
    CWE: 123            # also ok
autodiscoverable:
  note: As described in the bug note by Jan Lieskovsky (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862324#c0)
    This was found by performing sanitization of provided X keyboard (XKB) layouts.
    There was not proper filters made for the layout. Once passed through it can use
    injection to commit the violation.
  answer: true
  instructions: |
    Is it plausible that a fully automated tool could have discovered
    this? These are tools that require little knowledge of the domain,
     e.g. automatic static analysis, compiler warnings, fuzzers.
    Examples for true answers: SQL injection, XSS, buffer overflow
    In systemd, the actually use OZZ Fuzz. If there's a link to it, add it here.
    Examples for false: RFC violations, permissions issues, anything
    that requires the tool to be "aware" of the project's
    domain-specific requirements.
    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
vcc_instructions: "The vulnerability-contributing commits.\nThese are found by our
  tools by traversing the Git Blame history, where we \ndetermine which commit(s)
  introduced the functionality. \nLook up these VCC commits and verify that they are
  not simple refactorings, \nand that they are, in fact introducing the vulnerability
  into the system. \nOften, introducing the file or function is where the VCC is,
  but VCCs can be \nanything. \nPlace any notes you would like to make in the notes
  field.\n"
bugs_instructions: "What bugs and/or pull requests are involved in this vulnerability?
  \nFor systemd, this is typically their GitHub issues, but could also include \nbugs
  from other databases. Put a URL instead of a single number.\n"
yaml_instructions: |
  =================
  ===YAML Primer===
  =================
  This is a dictionary data structure, akin to JSON.
  Everything before a colon is a key, and the values here are usually strings
  For one-line strings, you can just use quotes after the colon
  For multi-line strings, as we do for our instructions, you put a | and then
  indent by two spaces
  For readability, we hard-wrap multi-line strings at 80 characters. This is
  not absolutely required, but appreciated.
fixes_instructions: "Please put the commit hash in \"commit\" below.\nThis must be
  a git commit hash from the systemd source repo, a  40-character \nhexademical string/\nPlace
  any notes you would like to make in the notes field.\n"
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  commits:
  - note: This is the commit that introduced the method and problem to the system.
      Interesting to see how much went into the method.
    commit: 1822350db15b089f094a6dbd2469842ab42c1d87
  - note: This uses the state of the keymap which is introduced to the above commit.
      Quite possible that this could further complications.
    commit: 89f134406af6a4b4c7493f624a89dcd654b48e81
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?
    Use this to specify any commits you think are notable in some way, and
    explain why in the note.
order_of_operations:
  note: The fix involved removing code
  answer: false
  question: "Does the fix for the vulnerability involve correcting an order of \noperations?\nThis
    means the fix involves moving code around or changing the order of \nhow things
    are done. \nAnswer must be true or false.\nWrite a note about how you came to
    the conclusions you did, regardless of\nwhat your answer was.\n"
curated_instructions: "If you are manually editing this file, then you are \"curating\"
  it. \nSet the version number that you were given in the instructions. \n \nThis
  will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you \nfill everything
  out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work\nas finished unless
  curated is properly updated. \n"
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.
  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it.
  If the report mentions a nickname, use that.
  Must be under 30 characters. Optional.
reported_instructions: |
  What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
  security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that
  the CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date.
  This is not the same as published date in the NVD - that is below.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
published_instructions: |
  Is there a published fix or patch date for this vulnerability?
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.
  Rewrite this description IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.
  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove project-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to this project would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.
  Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
  security