Linux specific local privilege escalation via the multiprocessing forkserver start method - CVE-2022-42919 #97514
Description
Activity
- changed the title
[-]Placeholder issue for a specific pending security fix.[/-][+]Linux specific local priviledge escalation via the multiprocessing forkserver start method - CVE-2022-42919[/+]on Oct 20, 2022 - added a commit that references this issue
on Oct 20, 2022 - added a commit that references this issue
on Oct 20, 2022 13 remaining items
I created https://python-security.readthedocs.io/vuln/multiprocessing-abstract-socket.html to track this vulnerability.
Reacted by Gregory P. Smith and Lumír 'Frenzy' BalharCanonical is tracking it for Ubuntu (and ultimately Debian?) here: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-5713-1
RedHat seems to be tracking it for RHEL and Fedora as well: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138705
Thanks for this @gpshead!
Apologies for the newbie question.
Here Canonical mentions that for Python 3.9~20.04 (focal) the status isNeeded.With these changes you've effectively fixed it for 3.9? What are the next steps?
I assume a new version would be released (something like 3.9~20.04.2 ?)
But how long would that take? How could I track this?Thank you in advance!
Canonical is tracking it for Ubuntu (and ultimately Debian?) here: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-5713-1
RedHat seems to be tracking it for RHEL and Fedora as well: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138705
openSUSE https://bugzilla.suse.com/1204886 (aka https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2022-42919)
I added links to my page. Well, it would be even better if people other than me would maintain the vulnerability list. It's a long YAML page: https://github.com/vstinner/python-security/blob/main/vulnerabilities.yaml#L2049
Reacted by Mickey Pashov@vstinner I'd be up for that if it mean freeing up some time for you? 👍
I added links to my page. Well, it would be even better if people other than me would maintain the vulnerability list. It's a long YAML page: https://github.com/vstinner/python-security/blob/main/vulnerabilities.yaml#L2049
Generally, for openSUSE,
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=CVEidshould work (I think, for the Red Hat as well, doesn’t it?). And yes,bugzilla.opensuse.org,bugzilla.suse.com, andbugzilla.novell.comare the same thing, just DNS aliases.Note that the NIST NVD record linked from the Python Security tracker contains misleading information. At the bottom it claims "Known Affected: up to (excluding) 3.10.8" which is confusing folks into thinking 3.10.8 is unaffected by this vulnerability. It would be great if someone with authority for Python's vulnerability disclosure could reach out to NIST and get that corrected, since it may be causing some organizations to not realize they need to patch their builds.
Reacted by Gregory P. SmithYes, I'm disappointed with my interactions with Mitre regarding getting the CVE text updated. The clear categorized information I provided to them via their cve request web form when reserving the CVE id was mostly discarded when they flipped it from "Reserved" to publish it with information.
This process should in theory go smoother once Python is setup as its own CNA (we're planning to do this).
Anyways the good news is that it can be updated and now that I finally got them to make the record public in some form, doing so should be easier. I'll see what I can do to clean the CVE record that winds up in the NVD up. It is ultimately a JSON blob following a defined schema and now that it is public I believe I can do so via a PR against https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelist/blob/master/2022/42xxx/CVE-2022-42919.json - we'll see. It's a byzantine process. :/
@gpshead I would like to point out that the bugfix with support for abstract namespace sockets was added in Python 3.8.3, not Python 3.8.4.
The bugfix was in March 2020, and Python 3.8.3 was released in May 2020 so it was already merged.See the following:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.8.3/Lib/multiprocessing/util.py#L116Reacted by avivnakar and Gregory P. SmithThanks. Main description text updated to say 3.8.3.
Yes. But it is basically a demo exploit so we're intentionally not releasing that ourselves. I'll leave an exploit as an exercise for others.
To scan a Linux system for such vulnerable sockets being open.
ss -lx | grep @listener. The @ is the ss token for null which means abstract namespace socket, the Python forkserver code uses a socket name similar tolistener-{forkserver_pid}-0by default. If one of those exists, something is likely running an unpatched python forkserver:~$ python3.9 ... >>> import multiprocessing >>> multiprocessing.set_start_method("forkserver") >>> p = multiprocessing.Pool() >>> ^Z [1]+ Stopped python3.9 ~$ ss -lx | grep @listener u_str LISTEN 0 128 @listener-1247748-0 196275393 * 0If there are multiple network namespaces you probably need to do more to scan all of those from a sufficiently priviledged user.
TL;DR
Python 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11.0rc2 on Linux may allow for a local privilege escalation attack in a non-default configuration when code uses the
multiprocessingmodule and configuresmultiprocessingto use the forkserver start method.Details
The Python
multiprocessinglibrary, when used with the forkserver start method on Linux, allows Python pickles to be deserialized from any user in the same machine local network namespace, which in many system configurations means any user on the same machine. Pickles can execute arbitrary code. Thus, this allows for local user privilege escalation to the user that any Python multiprocessing forkserver process is running as.The forkserver start method for multiprocessing is not the default start method. This issue is Linux specific because only Linux supports abstract namespace sockets.
CPython before 3.9 does not make use of Linux abstract namespace sockets by default.
This issue has been assigned CVE-2022-42919.
Credit: This issue was discovered by Devin Jeanpierre (@ssbr) of Google.
Are Python 3.7 and 3.8 affected?
Not by default.
Support for users manually specifying an abstract namespace AF_UNIX socket was added as a bugfix in 3.7.8 and 3.8.3, but users would need to make specific uncommon
multiprocessingAPI calls specifying their own forkserver control socket path in order to do that in CPython before 3.9.What about code that explicitly asks for an abstract socket?
Applications found to be making the uncommon
multiprocessingAPI calls to explicitly use Linux abstract namespace sockets with a forkserver are believed to be rare and should have their own specific security issues filed.Workarounds
From Python application or library code:
This disables their use by default. You must execute that before anything else in your process has started making use of multiprocessing.
If you can patch your CPython runtime itself:
Remove these two lines from CPython's
Lib/multiprocessing/connection.py:(that is what our security bug fix commits do).
Or, similar to the application level fix, edit
Lib/multiprocessing/util.pyto always set:Alternatives to avoid the problem
If your Linux Python application can be switched from multiprocessing's
.set_start_method("forkserver")to a start method such as"spawn"that will also avoid this issue.Scope of the bug fixes
We are changing the default in Python 3.9 and higher to not use the Linux abstract namespace sockets by default.
It would be ideal to add authentication to the forkserver control socket so that it isn't even relying on filesystem permissions. This is a more complicated change and is expected to be done as a feature in 3.12.
Tasks
Linked PRs