Sign in / up

back to article Penguins force-fed root: Cruel security flaw found in systemd v228

Some Linux distros will need to be updated following the discovery of an easily exploitable flaw in a core system management component. The CVE-2016-10156 security hole in systemd v228 opens the door to privilege escalation attacks, creating a means for hackers to root systems locally if not across the internet. The …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

      1. Ramazan
        Reply Icon

        Re: use sysvinit instead

        "Would that removal of systemd work for the latest Ubuntu/Mint too..? Has anyone tried it..?"

        Most probably you won't be able to get rid of systemd on desktop machine as all major desktop environments (gnome, kde, lxde, xfce, mate and cinnamon) depend on systemd. At least that's how things are on Debian at the moment. On Ubuntu YMMV. You can switch to minimalistic window manager though (openbox, uwm, twm etc), it definitely would work.

        0 1 Reply
    2. Ramazan
      Reply Icon

      Re: use sysvinit instead

      "it's still fairly straightforward to run the current Debian release using sysvinit instead".

      Only if you run the current Debian release without desktop environment. All Debian's "task-desktop" variants, i.e. gnome, kde, lxde, xfce, mate and cinnamon _require_ systemd.

      So,

      fuck systemd

      fuck gnome

      fuck kde

      fuck lxde

      fuck xfce

      fuck mate

      fuck cinnamon

      1 1 Reply
      1. jake Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: use sysvinit instead

        Actually, Ramazan, you can run any of the desktop environments without systemd.

        Remember, Linux is just the kernel. What you bolt on top of it is up to you.

        Slackware (for example) comes with blackbox, fluxbox, fvwm2, kde, twm, wmaker and xfce. Gnome can be added fairly easily with Dropline. Mate can be had with mateslackbuilds at github. All without systemd.

        HTH, have fun :-)

        2 1 Reply
        1. Bodge99
          Reply Icon

          Re: use sysvinit instead

          ** Slackware (for example) comes with blackbox, fluxbox, fvwm2, kde, twm, wmaker and xfce. Gnome can be added fairly easily with Dropline. Mate can be had with mateslackbuilds at github. All without systemd.**

          The same applies with Cinnamon..

          0 0 Reply
  2. Kurgan
    FAIL

    systemd SUCKS!

    Simple as that. Systemd SUCKS. Use Devuan, without systemd by design.

    17 3 Reply
  3. Pirate Dave Silver badge
    Pirate

    Systemd

    the worst recursively self-referencing acronym in history.

    Linux - Linux Is Not UniX

    Pine - Pine Is Not Email

    Systemd - Systemd Is Not Windows

    Nope, I don't see how they got that.

    Oh, and before I go: Fuck systemd.

    16 5 Reply
    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Systemd

      "Pine - Pine Is Not Email"

      I thought that was "Pine Is Not Elm"

      16 0 Reply
      1. jake Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Systemd

        Pine Is Not EMACS

        4 0 Reply
      2. Pirate Dave Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Pirate

        Re: Systemd

        My bad. Fingers were outrunning brain...

        Wikipedia (for what it's worth) says the E is related to Elm, not EMACS

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_%28email_client%29

        2 0 Reply
        1. jake Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Systemd

          It's a joke, son. Everybody know EMACS is an awful email client ;-)

          2 1 Reply
          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: Systemd

            "Everybody know EMACS is an awful email client ;-)"

            Isn't it? I thought it was everything else.

            1 0 Reply
            1. Down not across
              Reply Icon

              Re: Systemd

              "Everybody know EMACS is an awful email client ;-)"

              Isn't it? I thought it was everything else.

              Reminds me of few people I know (who at least couple or so decades ago) were rather fond of emacs (both full-fat and microemacs) and ran it effectively (if not for real) as their shell and did everything (email,usenet,gopher, you name it*) via it and had extensive Lisp library.

              *Yes kids, there was internet before www...

              5 1 Reply
              1. jake Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: Systemd

                I have a user login ("write") that I use for serious writing. It uses vi as the shell. When I'm writing (code, documentation, contracts, dead-tree letters), I don't like distractions. Yes, I use a serial terminal for this, no GUI to get in the way.

                3 1 Reply
              2. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: email,usenet,gopher, you name it

                "Those were the days, my friend..."

                Still remember the major switch in Big Blue support downloads from an emulated 3270 over SDLC to an async X.25 and a country-local gopher server. My productivity increased three-fold. Which is not true anymore with the invention of the Java abomination which brought everything back to 3270-speeds. Which reminds me a story attributed to Niclaus Wirt:

                "Back in the mid-80's I had PC XT with two floppy drives. It was booting DOS from the first, loading Lotus 1-2-3 from the second, and in 5 minutes I was able to do my family's accounts. Now, nearly 20 years later, I have a latest-technology PC with Windows and Excel which still loads in 5 minutes before I proceed with the accounts. Why do they tell me the computers got faster?"

                4 1 Reply
                1. P. Lee
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: email,usenet,gopher, you name it

                  >Why do they tell me the computers got faster?"

                  Ah, I see the problem... you thought faster computers were for your benefit!

                  Nope, they're faster for software vendors' benefit, so they can use cheaper, less efficient coders.

                  1 0 Reply
                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Reply Icon
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: email,usenet,gopher, you name it

                  Boot DOS and 1-2-3 on your PC...

                  0 0 Reply
          2. P. Lee
            Reply Icon
            Joke

            Re: Systemd

            >It's a joke, son. Everybody know EMACS is an awful email client ;-)

            and only a so-so web client. ;)

            Wait on a minute... did someone rename emacs to "systemd" and dump it in /boot ?

            3 0 Reply
    2. Steve the Cynic
      Reply Icon

      Re: Systemd

      "Linux - Linux Is Not UniX"

      You must be thinking of:

      GNU - GNU's Not Unix

      The Unreliable Source says that the "Linu" in "Linux" is the same "Linu" in "Linus" (and, further, that he didn't really want it called that, but a coworker thought it was a better name than "Freax").

      3 0 Reply
    3. Hans 1
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      Re: Systemd

      >Systemd - Systemd Is Not Windows

      Systemd - Spoil your system this elegance must die

      TFTFY

      2 0 Reply
  4. jake Silver badge

    Hate systemd?

    If you haven't recently, you might want to re-evaluate Slackware.

    5 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hate systemd?

      I love Slackware, I really do, but I moved to Void.

      0 0 Reply
      1. jake Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Hate systemd?

        I've looked at Void. I have nothing against it. However, it's occupying a niche that is already filled by the rather mature FreeBSD ...

        1 0 Reply
    2. slack
      Reply Icon

      Re: Hate systemd?

      Came to reference Slackware, happy to see I was beaten to it.

      1 0 Reply
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Inevitable

    The inevitable problem that occurs when you chuck out decades of tried'n'tested code and replace it with something new, especially with something like systemd, is that you're going to come across a whole new set of flaws, vulnerabilities, etc.

    So for any attacker who is truly serious about getting inside Linux systems, systemd represents a golden opportunity for years of vulnerability discovery and exploitation. A flaw like this is a real gift to the nastier types out there on the Internet. They'll have been scouring systemd's source code for things like this. Looks like this particular one is an absolute corker. I wonder who knew of it without letting on.

    Is Linux Secure?

    With systemd taking on a huge and privileged role in the OS, and with it's significant source code volatility, can we honestly say anything positive about the security of Linux/SystemD based OSes at the moment? I'm not sure we can. We won't be able to be confident until the functionality has settled down and people have spent years pouring over the source code looking for mistakes like this.

    It'll gradually get there I'm sure, but right now one feels that it is in a worse place at the moment than it was pre-systemd.

    12 1 Reply
    1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Pirate

      Re: The Inevitable

      "With systemd taking on a huge and privileged role in the OS, and with it's significant source code volatility, can we honestly say anything positive about the security of Linux/SystemD based OSes at the moment? I'm not sure we can."

      Don't paint us all with the same brush - some of us are sticking with sysvinit systems until we either retire, or until certain vendors wearing rouge chapeaus pull their heads out of their asses and send systemd packing. This security issue is not necessarily a "Linux" problem, this is a "systemd" problem, which IS NOT LINUX.

      (OTOH - the new acronym for systemd could be STINX - SysTemd Is Not linuX...)

      12 0 Reply
      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: The Inevitable

        "or until certain vendors wearing rouge chapeaus pull their heads out of their asses and send systemd packing."

        But don't the rouge chapeaux wearers also have the one commercially supported non-systemd Linux still available as an alternative? They must have overlooked that.

        0 1 Reply
      2. hplasm
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: The Inevitable

        "STINX - SysTemd Is Not linuX..."

        Have an Internet, Sir!

        1 1 Reply
    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Linux

      Re: The Inevitable

      "Is Linux Secure"

      yes. Linux is secure. Related, systemd is NOT Linux. thankfully.

      2 2 Reply
  6. ckdizz

    Oh my God! A vulnerability in software that can give ab attacker root! This validates everything I knew about the software in question, and I'm fully justified in being against it and avoiding using it!

    Apply that principle universally instead of just to things you can't be bothered learning. You wouldn't even be using pen and paper because someone could look over your shoulder. There have been many more much worse vulnerabilities in software you all no doubt use every day without complaint. The great thing about Linux is that if you don't like something, you don't have to use it. Feel free to exercise that power, but get off your high horses in your fictional world where root level vulnerabilities only exist in things you hate.

    3 11 Reply
    1. jake Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      I'm fully justified in being against it and avoiding using it

      No. I'm fully justified in being against it and avoiding using it because it completely goes against the UNIX design philosophy of "each program does one thing well".

      Yes, I've evaluated systemd (as I so most new major offerings in the FOSS world)In my opinion, it puts too many eggs in one basket, and the basket is entirely too small for the load. So I avoid it. Obviously, YMMV, and you are free to comment. But don't presume to assume that my (or anybody else's!) dislike of systemd is based on anything other than "unfit for purpose".

      12 2 Reply
    2. Long John Brass
      Reply Icon
      Mushroom

      You don't get it do you

      @ckdizz

      IF I could just rip systemd off my machines without it bricking everything along with it I would be happy

      BUT I can't, remove systemd packages and there goes your whole fucking desktop

      EVERYTHING now has a dependency on system fucking D

      I would hate it a lot LESS if I had a choice about using it, but I don't so cue up the hate

      Get it now?

      6 1 Reply
    3. Ramazan
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      "Apply that principle universally instead of just to things you can't be bothered learning"

      Apply this principle to things that are forced on you by default, are not necessary (sysvinit is just fine) and come full with root escalation vulnerabilities. Apply this principles to "improvements" that "fix" things that ain't broke.

      2 1 Reply
      1. Orv Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        "Apply this principles to "improvements" that "fix" things that ain't broke."

        I think a lot of the "improvements" are down to a religious devotion to running the same OS on laptops that we run on servers. For example, NetworkManager is a godsend on a laptop that moves around, but really painful on a server, where you might configure the network once every three or four years and really want it to come up as early in the boot process as possible.

        3 0 Reply
        1. sisk
          Reply Icon

          I think a lot of the "improvements" are down to a religious devotion to running the same OS on laptops that we run on servers. For example, NetworkManager is a godsend on a laptop that moves around, but really painful on a server, where you might configure the network once every three or four years and really want it to come up as early in the boot process as possible.

          The difference is that you can remove NetworkManager and go back to your config files on that server in a matter of minutes, but dumping systemd is, at best, a painful process sure to cause even more problems.

          3 0 Reply
          1. Orv Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            "The difference is that you can remove NetworkManager and go back to your config files on that server in a matter of minutes, but dumping systemd is, at best, a painful process sure to cause even more problems."

            Very true. I didn't say they were equivalent, but I think systemd is motivated by the same desire to support laptops with a server OS -- fast boot times seem to be a major selling point, and this only makes sense on laptops and desktops. Servers aren't rebooted often and generally have lengthy BIOS POST periods anyway (anywhere from two to twenty minutes, in my experience.)

            2 0 Reply
  7. Dazed and Confused

    WTF

    If you touch a file, make it 7777 so it's world writeable and SUID then a non root user writes to the file the kernel takes away SUID and SGID. So not only is systemd being done in letting you create the 7777 file in the first place. It's being dumb is letting you write something to it which could then be executed.

    Only root would be able to issue the write without the 6000 mode bits being reset.

    1 0 Reply
    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      Re: WTF

      "Only root would be able to issue the write without the 6000 mode bits being reset."

      assuming that a different exploit did not successfully write to this file and still keep the bits...

      0 0 Reply
  8. x 7

    so what mainstream distros are available now that don't use systemd? And I mean mainstream, not homebrew distros cooked up by one man and his donkey........

    0 0 Reply
    1. Dazed and Confused
      Reply Icon

      RHEL/CentOS 6

      I think I loath and despise 7 more and more with each and every passing day.

      2 0 Reply
    2. Michael Felt
      Reply Icon

      systemd - the future? or just another way to boot *nix

      I have never had to deal with systemd - and I am surprised to hear there is so much division about whether it was a move forward or not.

      Before this I was thinking: for a "family" packages built around the systemd philosophy it could be beneficial. Mt concern with "Linux" boot phases is mainly that every distro has come up with 'their' way to "solve" the problem of boot - and learning all of those (just as it is hard to learn all the ways that *bsd, aix, hp, solaris, etc. differ in their ways to boot the system).

      If systemd provides a way that ALL distros use the same files, same directories, etc. such that I learn one distro and can effectively administrter any distro - it is a win. Without that systemd, imho, is just a new, different 'thing' that needs to be learned, researched, etc..

      In summary - I have doubts systemd will be universal to system administration.

      Have a good day everyone! Smile! and then go kick a can ;)

      1 0 Reply
    3. nematoad
      Reply Icon
      Go

      Here you go.

      "so what mainstream distros are available now that don't use systemd? And I mean mainstream, not homebrew distros cooked up by one man and his donkey..."

      PCLinuxOS for one.

      Texstar has stated that he will NEVER use systemd.

      1 0 Reply
    4. slack
      Reply Icon

      AFAIK Pat V doesn't own a donkey. ;)

      0 0 Reply
  9. dbannon
    Happy

    So, do somethng !

    OK, so systemd is -

    a. Completely unusable

    b. Completely unnecessary

    c. Completely adopted by the major distros.

    So, if you systemd haters go out and make a new distro without systemd, the world will beat a path to your door. Call it deb-sansd perhaps ? You will rule the world ! You could even set up your own mailing list and "discuss" systemd there (and not here...).

    2 6 Reply
    1. Charles 9
      Reply Icon

      Re: So, do somethng !

      "So, if you systemd haters go out and make a new distro without systemd, the world will beat a path to your door. Call it deb-sansd perhaps ? You will rule the world ! You could even set up your own mailing list and "discuss" systemd there (and not here...)."

      If that were true, why hasn't a major supplier done so and beat the haters to the punch (and the bucks)?

      0 0 Reply
  10. batfastad

    Faster

    But systemd makes my server boot 2 seconds faster! After I've waited 20 minutes for "configuring memory", "updating inventory", "verifying system devices", "lifecycle controller something".

    4 1 Reply
  11. PNGuinn
    Flame

    And so it starts...

    See Title.

    Version 22WHAT?? What is this supposed to be? an init system or a BLOODY BROWSER??

    Question - How many other unknown vulnerabilities are rolled up into that hairball of code?

    Burn it with fire - it's the only way.

    2 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And so it starts...

      And if it turns out to be fireproof?

      0 0 Reply
  12. sisk

    Yet more proof

    that systemd is not yet ready for prime time.

    0 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yet more proof

      There is no timeline, prime or otherwise, that systemd is ready for. Hopefully in 5 years we can look back on systemd as merely an interesting, but misguided, experiment that failed.

      0 1 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like