|
COMMAND SQL server extended procedure buffer overflow SYSTEMS AFFECTED SQL Server 7.0 and 2000 PROBLEM In Microsoft security advisory [MS02-020] : Several of the Microsoft-provided extended stored procedures have a flaw in common - namely, they fail to perform input validation correctly ... An attacker could exploit this vulnerability in one of two ways. Firstly, the attacker could attempt to load and execute a database query that calls one of the affected functions. Secondly, if a web-site or other database front-end were configured to access and process arbitrary queries, it could be possible for the attacker to provide inputs that would cause the query to call one of the functions in question with the appropriate malformed parameters. Toni Lassila adds : At least one confirmed case of buffer overflow: > xp_enumgroups \'<long string>\' [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionCheckForData (CheckforData()). Server: Msg 11, Level 16, State 1, Line 0 General network error. Check your network documentation. Connection Broken Bronek Kozicki adds : As stated on http://www.appsecinc.com/resources/alerts/mssql/02-0000.html following ext. procedures are available to \'public\': * xp_mergelineages (MSSQL2K) * xp_proxiedmetadata (MSSQL2K and MSSQL7) SQL Server 2000 _can_ run under non-administrator account, however it requires full access to registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\System\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\MSSQLServer as explicitly stated in \"Setting Up a Secure SQL Server 2000 Installation\" http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/maintain/security/sql2ksec.asp Having this access level, SQL server process is able to modify \"ObjectName\" value in the registry. This is enough to re-configure service to run as LocalSystem. Hence, attacker able to run code under SQL Server account is able to re-configure service to run under highest possible local privileges, even is SQL Server is running as regular user. For this reason, securing SQL server by means of using least privileged account for the service is simply ineffective - opposite to what Microsoft says in above referenced article, and in MS02-020. This is result of required by SQL Server access level to registry key where service configuration is kept. SQL server also delivers stored procedure for this type of operation: xp_regwrite (undocumented) so this can be verified without writing shellcode: xp_regwrite \'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\',\'SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\MSSQLServer\', \'ObjectName\', REG_SZ,\'LocalSystem\' xp_cmdshell \'net stop mssqlserver /y & net start mssqlserver\' After changing registry and restarting service - voile! Instead of being poor user, you have local root! Of course, you may use this privilege for one thing only - put user account used by SQL Server before to local Administrators group, and restore previous value. There is undocumented xp_regread extended stored procedure, which can be used to read account name, before changing it to LocalSystem. [re-establish connection] xp_cmdshell \'whoami\' xp_cmdshell \'net localgroup administrators DOMAIN\\someacocunt /add\' xp_regwrite \'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\',\'SYSTEM\\CurrentControlSet\\Services\\MSSQLServer\', \'ObjectName\', REG_SZ,\'DOMAIN\\someacocunt\' xp_cmdshell \'net stop mssqlserver /y & net start mssqlserver\' [re-establish connection] xp_cmdshell \'whoami\' ... and you have old configuration back, with one difference: now you own the machine! Everyone may try above, it has been tested and will run if you have \'sa\' level, or you may code this in C (use Open Data Services) and put in own extended stored procedure (or shellcode ? :>> ) to run under SQL service account. You will gain local Administrator, no matter what local restrictions was put on SQL Server account. I want to point that this is _not_ problem of poor administration: administrator of this machine have done everything to secure his/her server, except removing undocumented Microsoft extended stored procedures. Of course, sane administrator will not allow untrusted users to run any code on SQL server as \'sa\', but this is not the point. My point is to explain why one of mitigating factors put in MS02-020 is UNTRUE. Attacker able to run code in SQL Server process, or as \'sa\' will own the machine. Opposite to what Microsoft says: you may _not_ relay on local restrictions effective on SQL service account as a security measure! SOLUTION see : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms02-020.asp