Escaping the Safari sandbox with a kernel GPU bug

http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2014/11/pwn4fun-spring-2014-safari-part-ii.html

by silenteh • 12 years ago

152 30 12 years ago

googleprojectzero.blogspot.com

billconan3• 12 years ago

Thank you for sharing, this is a very good reading. I purchased a book about using buffer overflow to hack stuff. but I'm wondering how those kernel bugs were discovered?

linuxfan2• 12 years ago

What was the title of the book you purchased? Can you share its name?

billconan3• 12 years ago

sure, this is the book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593271441/ref=oh_aui_detai...

Hacking: The Art of Exploitation, 2nd Edition

thoughtpolice• 12 years ago

If you want an excellent book on kernel security, I'd suggest buying "A Guide to Kernel Exploitation: Hacking the Core". It's a fairly technical book, so I wouldn't recommend it unless you have exploit and modern operating systems experience, but it's a good book that covers every major platform and a lot of details.

It's probably one of the best technical security related books I've ever read.

billconan3• 12 years ago

thank you so much for the info, I will take a look.

linuxfan2• 12 years ago

Thanks much for info on this book

ajkjk3• 12 years ago

This writeup, and the first part of this series, are amazing and incredibly instructive. But they make me embarrassed that anyone still runs or writes code that is so without memory safety that these bugs can exist.

alkonaut4• 12 years ago

The idea of passing around function pointers like raw values that way, or having a language+runtime without array bounds checks or checks for dereferencing invalid pointers is just frightening. We have tools now such that if they had been around in the 60's/70's we wouldn't have these problems. So why not start rebuilding low level systems using better tools? Granted, if we rewrite kernels, drivers, encryption etc in tools preventing stupid low-level bugs, we likely end up creating new high level bugs that were squashed years ago in the old C code. Still, isn't this something that has to be done?

gilgoomesh• 12 years ago

We have tools now such that if they had been around in the 60's/70's we wouldn't have these problems

Not for kernel development we don't.

The only modern, memory-safe language that gets close(-ish) to the performance of C for kernel development is Rust and it's a long way from being stable enough for mainstream kernel development.

And even a safe language like Rust won't prevent escalation problems like this if you're placing too much trust in incoming data. That's a design problem that has nothing to do with languages or memory safety.

pjmlp3• 12 years ago

Because UNIX was embraced by the enterprise and brought C along.

Algol 68, Modula-2, Mesa, Cedar were all options back when UNIX was being brought to life.

_RPM2• 12 years ago

What do you expect? Something (language) at some level needs to have physical access to the physical memory.

ajkjk3• 12 years ago

(rant ahead) What do I expect? I would expect engineers to identify how awful this situation is years ago and build a replacement. Finally, in the last few years, there are some serious attempts at doing so (Rust comes to mind). But it's taken this long and that astounds me.

You'll get no argument from me that a language needs direct access to memory. My problem is that the difference between correct code and exploitable code is extreme diligence on the part of the programmer, which fails constantly. [Arguably static analysis type tools can help a lot, but, that's just trying to recover from an already bad situation.]

For example, in the prequel to the OP's article (http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2014/07/pwn4fun-spring...), the original bug was overflowing an unsigned int. You should be spitting out your coffee! (/beverage of choice) How can it be be that a (presumably expert) programmer can write code that silently overflows integers by accident?

"It's 2014 and this still happens." That's my favorite non-argument. It's not constructive but it expresses how I feel. We're well past the years where people have had time to reflect on the fact that people have already struggled with and tried to solve the problem that this should simply not be possible. I don't need a fancy type system to enforce 'checked integers' are the only things that are passed to to my memcpys - but I do have to be willing, at some point, to discard the broken versions of the same thing I've been holding on to for 30 years in favor of something less perilous.

Oh, and, if you read the rest of that prequel article, the person who fixed the bug missed something else in doing so. They're adding overflow-safe versions of 'size_t' and 'unsigned int' together. Again, embarrassing. Not for their error, but because we-as-a-species are still writing code where that mistake can be made, and then not doing anything about it when it inevitably happens.

cataflam• 12 years ago

Amazing writeup. An attack from top (javascript) to bottom (kernel bugs), while very clearly explaining the discovery and exploit of vulnerability in each layer. The attack is very impressive, and the writeup makes it seem easy, which is a great compliment on the clarity of the writing.

Of course, and as mentioned at the end, the actual discovery process was much messier :)

As a bonus, there are a lot of links to other interesting documents as well.

brendangregg• 12 years ago

Great article! ... I'm glad I already disable hardware acceleration having hit kernel panics there on OS X before. (I did a write up, http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-05-23/osx-10.9.3-is-to..., but it's much less interesting/useful than this blog post).

LeoNatan25• 12 years ago

Still cool, thanks.

nraynaud• 12 years ago

I always feel a bit strange around security and exploitation people. Security is important, but it's so much easier to destroy and criticize stuff than to build something useful and try to balance all the aspects of a product.

knweiss• 12 years ago

"And if you're still running OS X Mavericks or below then why not try it out?"

In other words: "insecure" or "unstable" - choose one.

I'm all for upgrading to Yosemite, but this is a problem.

Escaping the Safari sandbox with a kernel GPU bug

Related Stories