• oskarkk 12 hours ago
    • bshipp 11 hours ago

      This is entertaining reading. Although I don't know how pervasive this issue is, from the chunk i have read so far I can see why he was concerned that it was relatively trivial to have a target system accept anything identifying itself as a printer and being able to inject malicious code into the machine.

      I was going to make fun of him wasting his sabbatical on hacking a printer service but I gotta admit I'd have fallen down the same rabbit hole if I stumbled on it. It's a cool hack.

    • jiripospisil 14 hours ago

      > Full disclosure happening at 20:00 UTC today, in a bit more than 2 hours.

      > Also, to temper some concern about @evilsocket recent research... His bugs are in a thing that none of you should have installed so when it's published, please just uninstall that junk. Hopefully the response of the developer shows how badly you need to remove it.

      https://x.com/evilsocket/status/1839361276813902240

      https://x.com/jduck/status/1839312872817803570

      • jiripospisil 12 hours ago

        Almost certainly CUPS related.

        • bshipp 12 hours ago

          From an eating-popcorn perspective, I would find it truly entertaining that a printer package could somehow result in a 9.9 security vulnerability that is somehow worse than heartbleed. How many linux systems actually have cups installed and active?

          • Alex-Programs 12 hours ago

            My desktop did. It wasn't publicly exposed though. Past tense - I just purged it.

            I doubt many exposed servers have CUPS.

            Edit: The article says he did an internet scan showing hundreds of thousands of vulnerable machines.

      • broknbottle 12 hours ago

        It's been obvious that it's CUPS as it was reported to affect linux, bsd, macos, etc.. The guy even forked the repo on github a couple weeks ago..

        very lukewarm and over hyped imo.. it's a bit sad that the person spent weeks of their vacation on this..

        https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/issues/36

        • error9348 17 hours ago

          Original source seems to be https://archive.is/wwoQZ

          • karmakaze 17 hours ago

            Devs need to include security pervasively (like they have ops for deployments).

              * Canonical, RedHat and others have confirmed the severity, a 9.9, check screenshot.
              * Devs are still arguing about whether or not some of the issues have a security impact.
            
            > I've spent the last 3 weeks of my sabbatical working full time on this research, reporting, coordination and so on with the sole purpose of helping and pretty much only got patronized because the devs just can't accept that their code is crap - responsible disclosure: no more.

            With a confirmed 9.9 there's no need to argue, get the top priorities done, work on others on the possibility they need to be released as well. The act of working in them will usually give a clear answer if it could have security impact. Don't have armchair debates. You can't find loopholes if your mindset is that there are none.

            • undefined 12 hours ago
              [deleted]
            • ajdude 18 hours ago

                 > A 9.9 CVE has been announced for Linux  Remote code execution. No details yet. Heartbleed was 7.5, for reference. This is one of the worst in history. All GNU/Linux systems impacted.
              
              
              Wonder how bad this is.
              • wannacboatmovie 18 hours ago

                What about non-GNU Linux? Is kernel or userland impacted?

                • sickofparadox 18 hours ago

                  OP mentioned later in the thread that MacOS is supposedly impacted as well, so if its some underlying system I'd imagine de-GNU'd Linux is affected also.

              • Am4TIfIsER0ppos 18 hours ago

                I wonder if it is genuine or theoretical like specter and meltdown.

                • 7bit 15 hours ago

                  > Wonder how bad this is.

                  One of the worst in history!

                • imhoguy 12 hours ago

                  Someone supposedly have reviewed the report and scores it 6.3, they say 9.9 is overblown to bring attention to fix the issue promptly https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23466721&cid=64817845

                  • seanieb 9 hours ago

                    "You're probably not vulnerable to the CUPS CVE" https://xeiaso.net/notes/2024/cups-cve/

                    • undefined 17 hours ago
                      [deleted]
                      • red-iron-pine 14 hours ago

                        still being discussed as of right now. might be a thing, but may also be hype.

                        if it is indeed a thing then keeping it close to the chest is wise until RH, Canonical, etc. can start releasing patches.

                        • jamwil 17 hours ago

                          Announced… where? The tweet has no link and no context.

                          • vsean 15 hours ago

                            The post is by the guy that discovered and reported the vulnerability.

                          • bshipp 12 hours ago

                            https://gist.github.com/stong/c8847ef27910ae344a7b5408d9840e...

                            Original report

                            Affected Vendor:

                              - OpenPrinting 
                            
                            Affected Product

                              - Several components of the CUPS printing system: cups-browsed, libppd, libcupsfilters and cups-filters.
                            
                            Affected Version

                              - All versions <= 2.0.1 (latest release) and master.
                            
                            Significant ICS/OT impact?

                              - no
                            
                            Reporter

                              - Simone Margaritelli [evilsocket@gmail.com]
                            
                            Vendor contacted?

                              - yes The vendor has been notified trough Github Advisories and all bugs have been confirmed:
                            
                            - https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/security/adviso...

                            - https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libcupsfilters/security/advi...

                            - https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libppd/security/advisories/G...

                            - https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-filters/security/adviso...

                            I'm also in contact with the Canonical security team about these issues.

                            Description

                              - The vulnerability affects many GNU/Linux distributions:
                            
                            [https://pkgs.org/download/cups-browsed]

                            Google ChromeOS:

                            https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/overlays/chromi...

                            Most BSDs:

                            https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=cups-browsed.conf&...

                            And possibly more.

                            <snip>

                            • bshipp 12 hours ago

                              How does an attacker exploit this vulnerability?

                                - An attacker can exploit this vulnerability if it can connect to the host via UDP port 631, which is by default bound to INADDR_ANY, in which case the attack can be entirely remote, or if it's on the same network of the target, by using mDNS advertisements.
                              
                              What does an attacker gain by exploiting this vulnerability?

                                - Remote execution of arbitrary commands when a print job is sent to the system printer.
                              
                              How was the vulnerability discovered?

                                - A lot of curiosity (when I noticed the \*:631 UDP bind I was like "wtf is this?!" and went down a rabbit hole ...) and good old source code auditing.
                              
                              Is this vulnerability publicly known?

                                - No, the bugs are not known and the FoomaticRIPCommandLine vulnerability is known to be already patched (it isn't).
                              
                              Is there evidence that this vulnerability is being actively exploited?

                                - Not to the best of my knowledge.
                            • slipperybeluga 17 hours ago

                              [dead]

                              • undefined 18 hours ago
                                [deleted]