back to article Dirty COW explained: Get a moooo-ve on and patch Linux root hole

Patch your Linux-powered systems, phones and gadgets as soon as possible, if you can, to kill off a kernel-level flaw affecting nearly every distro of the open-source operating system. Dubbed Dirty COW, the privilege-escalation vulnerability potentially allows any installed application, or malicious code smuggled onto a box, …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Utterly inexcusable...

    ...of Linus to have sat on this for a decade while it festered and escalated.

    I wonder how many more dirty great gaping backdoors he's got hidden up his bum.

    Need a Torvalds' salute icon ----->

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly inexcusable...

      It is, but at least we can fix this one.

      The patch may even be able to be back-ported to 2.6.22 where this once came. Or you might be able to dig up the patch that breaks S/390…

      This is to say nothing about the gaping holes in Windows XP and other Microsoft OSes that will never be patched.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: gaping holes in Windows XP and other Microsoft OSes

        Yeah, look over there! MS suck!!!

        Nothing to see here.....

    2. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Utterly inexcusable...

      As opposed to a whole chipset being shit? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/20/aslr_bypass_hardware_hack/

    3. jake Silver badge

      Re: Utterly inexcusable...

      The code in question was flagged publicly 11 years ago. Why didn't YOU patch it, AC?

      I suppose the AC is going to demonstrate to us all a better method of dealing with a FOSS software project the size of the Linux kernel ... when, exactly? What's that? You don't even have a suggestion for an incremental improvement?

      It's no wonder you posted AC, you have nothing to actually say.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly inexcusable...

      @AC

      -----> gaping backdoors

      Care to comment on this ?

      https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/ms16-120.aspx

      Note, under active exploit.

      Every current version of Windows affected and probably XP as well. Must be that backdoor Billy boy allowed the NSA to put there in Win95.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Utterly inexcusable...

        Those quoting Windows problems miss the point, that's the equivalent of pointing at your neighbours crummy shed while your own stately home is going up in flames (yes, that's what they are in comparison IMHO, so sue me :) ).

        I could understand the decision so many years ago, but I must admit I'm not too impressed by seeing how small the fix is - unless it's not really a fix.

        And I don't care how unsafe Windows is. I no longer use it, and it's entirely irrelevant in context.

        1. Daggerchild Silver badge

          Re: Utterly inexcusable...

          I must admit I'm not too impressed by seeing how small the fix is
          and you have no idea how much that underlines how little you understand about how complicated this is...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Utterly inexcusable...

            Isn't this being a bit over hyped?

            Ignoring which OS we're talking about:

            Most servers don't allow direct logins when facing the public internet. So, for example, if you're running an Apache server you don't let people outside your organisation login so any privilege escalation can't happen. Your risk comes from your own staff which should be a much lower risk than the world and his wife.

            If it's your personal PC then the risk comes from a virus written to take advantage of this bug. Here it could be a problem if you're in the habit of installing stuff from dodgy sources.... but most people don't.

            Next comes your mobile phone... fair enough, here you're stuffed but then this won't be the first security problem will it :-)

            I'm not saying that bugs like this aren't a problem but reporting tends to consist of "oh no, we're all going to die" which isn't true and desensitises people.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Utterly inexcusable...

              "Isn't this being a bit over hyped?"

              yes, and no.

              planes rarely crash. when a plane crashes, it's BIG NEWS, and gummint agencies, airlines, plane manufacturers, etc. go to work to prevent such things from happening in the future.

              Same here. Linux security problems are RARE. When it happens, it's a big thing. Let's just get if fixed.

              On a related note, embedded systems that cannot easily run binary executables will most likely NOT have a true vulnerability. So unless your IoT device or router has a COMMAND SHELL that is directly exposed to the intarwebs, it's not very likely to be exploited. [and if it DOES, the system architect needs to be sufficiently whipped with a Cat-5-O-Nine-Tails]

            2. asdf Silver badge

              Re: Utterly inexcusable...

              >Your risk comes from your own staff which should be a much lower risk

              NSA might disagree with you on that. Honestly good enterprise security is well aware its biggest risk is usually insiders. They might be much rarer than outsider attackers but the havoc they can wreck can be many times greater.

            3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Utterly inexcusable...

              "Your risk comes from your own staff" who can be pwned with a spear-phished email.

            4. eneville
              WTF?

              Re: Utterly inexcusable...

              Have you seen how many of the forum programs work, such as wordpress? They often execute programs, when they do, they run as the webserver user (normally 'nobody' or 'http'), or whoever the PHP forks as. This needs an account, obviously. The shell could still be set as /bin/false, but a shell is not required. You could mmap a kernel module, if you so wish, as inject something there. You could replace su with your own. Heck, do what you want.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Utterly inexcusable...

            and you have no idea how much that underlines how little you understand about how complicated this is...

            You could be right. After all, I spent 5 good years of my life researching a topic that I can now summarise in a single line, but that summary would simply not have been possible without not only the 5 years worth of work, but also the decades of experience on which it builds.

            I'll have to see if I can find an explanation I understand. In any case, I already saw a fix fly by in the Debian updates. Buggered my uptime, but I can live with that - after you've clocked your first year that's no longer quite as exciting :).

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Utterly inexcusable...

              "I already saw a fix fly by in the Debian updates"

              Not only that but it wasn't rolled up into a big batch combined with a whole lot of other half-explained stuff; it downloaded quickly, was applied quickly and was one of only very few to actually need a reboot.

  2. wsm
    Pint

    Live with it, or not

    It's been patched and now we all know that there is no such thing as perfect software.

    Good thing it's Friday and mine's a pint.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Live with it, or not

      We already knew there was "no such thing as perfect software", thanks.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      "It's been patched and now..."

      .... just eleven years later. Meanwhile, who knew about it and exploited it?

      1. Daggerchild Silver badge

        Re: "It's been patched and now..."

        The thing that jumps out at me is "Oh yeah, I remember trying to fix that 11 years ago".

        How many of us remember code we were working on even last month?

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: "It's been patched and now..."

        "Meanwhile, who knew about it and exploited it?"

        you HAVE to ask? [probably everybody with military-grade hackers]

  3. bobajob12

    The very definition of technical debt

    So let me get this right. El Torvaldo tried to fix the issue a decade ago but had to roll it back because of an issue with the S/390 build. Something that is used by, what, <5% of the total Linux base? But (I speculate here, someone please correct me) the hole was not documented, except in his memory. Fast forward ten years and millions of units later and now he is able to fix the hole in two lines of code.

    Technical debt, anyone?

    1. Fullmetal5

      Re: The very definition of technical debt

      From what I understand here is what happened.

      Linus first noticed a bug that was a side effect of this underlying error and attempted to fix it. He rolled it back due to the S/390 build failing and just said screw it since the bug he was experiencing wasn't actually doing anything bad at the time. This was all before Copy On Write was implemented into the kernel so there wasn't any vulnerability yet. Fast forward 10 years and COW is now implemented in the kernel around this buggy code. Someone found the bug and used it in combination with COW to produce this exploit in the wild. Then it was noticed and patched. I don't think Linus would have just left a bug like that sit for 10 years unless it was pretty trivial and at the time couldn't cause anything malicious.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Linus' sin wasn't "it doesn't do anything bad so I'll ignore it"

        His sin was in not leaving comments in the code explaining "here's a relatively harmless bug I found but didn't fix because of XYZ".

        Then maybe someone else would have decided to have a look at fixing it sometime in the past 11 years, or at least when the COW support was added someone would have thought "wait a minute, maybe that bug isn't so harmless anymore" and they would have fixed it before mainstreaming COW support.

        1. Tom 7 Silver badge

          Re: Linus' sin wasn't "it doesn't do anything bad so I'll ignore it"

          I'm not sure writing something like 'Here's an exploitable bug' in the comments would be sensible.

          Need to be noted somewhere safe and an eye kept on it.

        2. Mookster

          His sin was in not leaving comments in the code

          Which would let any hacker do a quick:

          find . -name "*" -exec fgrep linus-bug {} \; -print

      2. LDS Silver badge

        Re: The very definition of technical debt

        CoW wasn't implemented yesterday in the Linux kernel... that means the bug was there and exploitable for a long time.

        1. Dazed and Confused

          Re: The very definition of technical debt

          > CoW wasn't implemented yesterday in the Linux kernel...

          I should hope not, CoW was a pretty standard feature of Unix kernel's in the very early 90 before Linus even released his first version of Linux. It isn't a new idea and on an OS built around the idea of fork()ing it's pretty essential to performance.

          What I don't understand is why /proc/self/mem is allowing writes into a read-only portion of the address space. If you mmap a something read-only then trying to write to it should cause an error. The pages should be marked RO in the TLB and an exception should be thrown resulting in a bus error or segmentation violation.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: The very definition of technical debt

      This nothing to do with technical debt, at least as far as I see. Where does the S/390 come in?

      It has, however, a lot to do with a lack of formal methods (i.e. proving that code correct in the sense of fulfilling its specification) in an industry that prides itself on hacking complex systems "by mind alone" while features are being added like garlic to a greek roast lamb. This is bound to result in trouble, in this case entirely avoidable race conditions.

      We are not going the refit the mentality nor the tools to the current code and developer base within the next 20 years, so there will be more of this on the menu. Brace for IoT!

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: The very definition of technical debt

        The problem with formal proofs is that they can ONLY apply in a very narrow set of circumstances. seL4, for example, is ONLY formally proven when no DMA is allowed. But the real world intrudes, and secure code is next to useless if it doesn't let you get the bloody job done, and in the real world, performance matters.

        IOW, the worlds where Linux is used are too mercurial for a set of formal parameters to be constructed. Thus, formally proving Linux under all its real-world use cases is likely infeasible.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: The very definition of technical debt

          The problem with formal proofs is that they can ONLY apply in a very narrow set of circumstances.

          This is untrue and an opinion from the 90's. High-reliability software running in clearly defined circumstances (and let's face it, kernel-level code is not exactly "real world" worthy; no need of neural networks here) is today passing through the appropriate formal mangler, likle for example avionics software.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The very definition of technical debt

            "This is untrue and an opinion from the 90's."

            Having tried to formally prove some simple programs back in the 90's, I have to say, it's not entirely untrue. To formally and mathematically prove the correctness of software is a daunting, time-consuming task. And probably horribly expensive to do on a large scale.

      2. Mookster
        Facepalm

        Hacking "by mind alone"

        So what about all that Fuzzing then? that's about as mindless as it gets..

    3. streaky Silver badge

      Re: The very definition of technical debt

      390's must be way way way less than 5% of the linux base in terms of user numbers or cpu counts... Way way way less.

      Not really sure you can file this one under technical debt so much as common screw up.

      1. Maventi
        Mushroom

        Re: The very definition of technical debt

        I think way less than 0.005% is a pretty reasonable assumption. Otherwise I couldn't agree more!

      2. frankvw
        Angel

        Re: The very definition of technical debt

        "390's must be way way way less than 5% of the linux base in terms of user numbers or cpu counts... Way way way less."

        That is not the point. When this bug was unfixed, it was because at that moment in time it was simply unacceptable to just break Linux on S/390. Commit f33ea7f404e5, more than a decade ago, posed a simple question: Do we live with a vulnerability that at this point in time is a minor and obscure one, or do we break Linux on a type of host that is usually deployed in response to high-reliability and high-availability requirements? The answer to which would be "Duh", AFAIC.

        That said, this could have been better documented at the time and perhaps fixed before it became a high-profile issue. That said, we now all know what happened, why and how it happened, and what was done to adequately fixed it. Which is the proper way to deal with this.

    4. jake Silver badge

      Re: The very definition of technical debt

      "But (I speculate here, someone please correct me) the hole was not documented, except in his memory."

      You are wrong. It's been publicly documented since August 1st 2005. See: https://github.com/dirtycow/dirtycow.github.io/wiki/VulnerabilityDetails

      Technical debt? Of course, technically. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        @jake - documented since 2005

        Where you do you see that it is documented since 2005? When I click on the issues tab, everything is dated in the past couple days.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @jake - documented since 2005

          Where you do you see that it is documented since 2005? When I click on the issues tab, everything is dated in the past couple days.

          You clearly didn't look hard enough. Commit messages points the way to this very commit, which is not from the "past couple days".

      2. asdf Silver badge

        Re: The very definition of technical debt

        >Technical debt? Of course, technically.

        http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/909/991/48c.jpg

  4. Mage Silver badge

    Mitigation

    There has to be a malicious program running on your computer designed to exploit this. It's a privilege escalation.

    It's somewhat less likely there is a malicious program already, on a workstation etc behind a firewall with no outward facing services and "Noscript" or similar on the Browser.

  5. MotionCompensation

    How did it all go wrong?

    Perhaps it has something to do with the security of millions of devices worldwide depending on the actions of one man. A man who seems to have serious communication issues, to point where I'm willing to question his mental stability. It's not a healthy situation and the root cause is not a technical one, I don't buy the long technical explanation in this article.

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: How did it all go wrong?

      I don't buy the long technical explanation in this article. I buy closed software.

    2. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: A man who seems to have serious communication issues...

      ...to point where I'm willing to question his mental stability.

      It's a good job you're not in a position of authority then. There are many of us who question Linus' communication skills, but surely few would make the enormous leap to "questioning his mental stability". He is in control of something that grew way beyond it's original scope to become a product with global significance and with that in mind I think he copes relatively well. To finger this bug as evidence of a health issue is mental.

      1. David Nash Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: A man who seems to have serious communication issues...

        "To finger this bug as evidence of a health issue is mental."

        I agree, but had to chuckle at your choice of words

    3. PNGuinn
      Joke

      Re: How did it all go wrong?

      Fully agree.

      We need to move to the microsoft model where there is always someone with some deep technical noose in charge - like Balmer.

      Chairs v insults any day!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: How did it all go wrong?

        IOW, the thing about closed source is that someone has to be held responsible for it such that if something goes wrong you can sic the lawyers on them. When things go wrong with Windows, at least people can sue Microsoft. Who do you sue when something on Linux goes wrong, especially if the author in question is not subject to your jurisdiction?

        1. Preston Munchensonton

          Re: How did it all go wrong?

          IOW, the thing about closed source is that someone has to be held responsible for it such that if something goes wrong you can sic the lawyers on them. When things go wrong with Windows, at least people can sue Microsoft. Who do you sue when something on Linux goes wrong, especially if the author in question is not subject to your jurisdiction?

          Whether closed source or open source is irrelevant. The important thing is the license, because you agree to the terms offered in it, including any warranties for fitness, etc. That license is the contract that governs the responsibility of the producer and consumer.

        2. HieronymusBloggs

          Re: How did it all go wrong?

          "Who do you sue when something on Linux goes wrong"

          Given what is clearly stated in the NO WARRANTY section of the GPL, you (or whoever authorised the use of the software) have to take responsibility yourself. Strange concept in this day and age, I know.

        3. John Doe 6

          Re: How did it all go wrong?

          WHEN did You last read an EULA (from any IT business) ??

          They all clearly states that You can't sue them for anything.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How did it all go wrong?

          "When things go wrong with Windows, at least people can sue Microsoft."

          Eh, let's think - when was the last time we heard of someone (or some company) doing that on any large scale?

          Given Windows' well-earned historical reputation as security swiss-cheese, then by your logic, Microsoft should be the most-sued company in the history of the universe, and their defense lawyer bills alone would have eaten up every penny of profit they've ever made (or will make for the next 200 years). So no, your point is not valid in the least. Nobody sues Microsoft to the level that you are casually implying.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: How did it all go wrong?

      @MotionCompensation

      "A man who seems to have serious communication issues, to point where I'm willing to question his mental stability"

      good job with the 'armchair psychoanalysis'. NOT.

      Your attitude (my armchair psychoanalysis) reflects a person who is ENVIOUS of "the genius" and seeks to re-define genius as "a disorder" - like AD[H]D, some new flavor of autism, ass-burgers, whatever... something to be "cured" so that NOBODY is 'super' any more.

      /me recognizes that in SOME cases, these 'disorders' may be real, but in MOST, I suspect it's simply "curing the genius" for his own good... and lazy teachers drugging johnny so his bored genius mind won't cause him to disrupt the class.

  6. davcefai
    Flame

    Whinging

    Amazing, the lengths some people will go to in order to diss Open-Source!

    So Linus made a mistake (sort of). He admitted it, fixed it and moved on. MS have had known bugs running for years. I remember one where I found 6000+ questions about it on the web dating back 7 years. I forget the details but it affected data transfer, via SQL Server, between machines.

    The root solution is simple. Don't use Linux, then complain about what you are using - there will ALWAYS be something to complain about. The difference is that, in open-source, the discussions are open and frank.

    Thank you for Linux, Linus.

    1. sabroni Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Amazing, the lengths some people will go to in order to diss Open-Source!

      It's fair to expect the Register to keep quiet about something like this, after all it's only an reliably exploitable privilege escalation bug in Linux and Android.

      Though I am appalled that there wasn't a mention of some sql server inter service bug you vaguely remember from years ago! You know, for balance.

      1. PNGuinn
        Trollface

        Re: Amazing, the lengths some people will go to in order to diss Open-Source!

        "It's fair to expect the Register to keep quiet about something like this, after all it's only an reliably exploitable privilege escalation bug in Linux and Android.

        Though I am appalled that there wasn't a mention of some sql server inter service bug you vaguely remember from years ago! You know, for balance."

        FIFY. See icon>>

    2. Mage Silver badge

      Re: Whinging

      And at the end of the day it wasn't exploitable unless you had rubbish security anyway, or physical access, as the computer has to be running suitable malware.

      It was NOT an access hole or back door, but privilege escalation.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whinging

      The SQL sync main problem got solved not long ago, my brother corrected the problem. Not a bug, just bad code.

      Anon, of course.

  7. Doc Ock

    Here we go Linux vs Windows fanboys, lightsabres at the ready.

    Truth is no software will be relatively secure until processors and hardware subsystems are re-designed from the ground up with security coming first in the mind of the architects. It's an afterthought to performance and convenience.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3132969/security/flaw-in-intel-cpus-could-help-attackers-defeat-aslr-exploit-defense.html

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      "Truth is no software will be relatively secure until processors and hardware subsystems are re-designed from the ground up with security coming first in the mind of the architects. It's an afterthought to performance and convenience."

      For good reason. What good is security if you don't get the bloody job done? A fortress is no good without a way in or out, for example.

      1. Doc Ock

        > For good reason. What good is security if you don't get the bloody job done? A fortress is no good without a way in or out, for example.

        8086 architecture (or ARM for that matter) was never initially built with security primarily if at all in mind, anything that has been added in the way of security is just a patch. It never was designed as a fortress, more of a garden shed as a place to dump your tools.

        How can you get the job done when someone has robbed all your tools ?

        1. Wilseus
          Headmaster

          "How can you get the job done when someone has robbed all your tools?

          How exactly do you rob tools? Tools don't have any belongings to steal from.

          1. Doc Ock

            >How exactly do you rob tools? Tools don't have any belongings to steal from.

            Congratulations here's your blankety blank chequebook and pen, if you pop over to ITV Jim Bowen will give you a set of darts and a tankard.

        2. Charles 9 Silver badge

          "How can you get the job done when someone has robbed all your tools ?"

          With your hands. At least the shed means you can stay out of the rain, which means you can STILL get the job done. Besides, in the digital world, you can't rip silicon out of its housing without taking the entire CPU away, so bad analogy.

          Interesting you bring up the 8080 because that clearly demonstrates the mindset back then, and the mindset today (because no one's been able to create something secure-first that can still do the job): the job comes first, security second. If you're in a situation where security is so critical that the world can depend on it (like the US military), then a whole other mindset is needed which is generally incompatible with deadlines.

  8. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Pah

    I see the armchair analysts are out in force again. I wonder how many of them have ever had to maintain even a moderately sizeable chunk of code.

  9. roomey
    Coffee/keyboard

    Check out their shop

    Very reasonable I think!

  10. Unicornpiss Silver badge
    Meh

    There will always be another bug..

    ..in everything. With the complexity in modern systems, I really don't think it will be possible to stamp out every possible way to exploit any OS or device. Even physical security is subject to this--look at the ruckus caused some years back when someone figured out how to use "bump keys" to allow utter novices with no lock picking skills to easily bypass formerly secure locks.

    Next week the exploit du jour will be in code from MS, or Apple, or perhaps again in Linux, or somewhere entirely different. The only thing that matters is that there WILL be another bug. You can blame complexity, the "CYA" mentality, stressed out developers rushing things to market under the whip of managers, but even with 100 years of nothing to do but gaze at code, there will still be another bug.

    This is why IMO the constant warnings about the "Internet of Things" are spot on. If you want to be secure, only an air gap will truly prevent us ingenious, morally-questionable humans from finding another way around the next patch.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: There will always be another bug..

      "This is why IMO the constant warnings about the "Internet of Things" are spot on. If you want to be secure, only an air gap will truly prevent us ingenious, morally-questionable humans from finding another way around the next patch."

      Which is next to useless for something you HAVE to network. So how do you secure something that MUST be networked? And no, Joe Public WILL NOT accept, "You can't" for an answer. They want an answer, toot sweet.

      1. IgorS
        FAIL

        Re: There will always be another bug..

        Why should a regular user care?

        Especially for something like a networked light bulb?

        As long as it does what it is advertised for, that's all the final user cares about.

        The real problem is the abuse of IoT for actions that are not user visible.

        Like starting DDOS attacks.

        We need to make manufacturers responsible for any actions of their devices that were not explicitly advertised to the users. Then the manufacturers will start paying attention!

        It is really not fair to blame the final users.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: There will always be another bug..

          "We need to make manufacturers responsible for any actions of their devices that were not explicitly advertised to the users. Then the manufacturers will start paying attention!"

          But what happens when the manufacturers hide behind sovereignty? And lots of things are imported direct to the buyer these days? How will you stem that without seriously hurting the economy?

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: There will always be another bug..

          "It is really not fair to blame the final users."

          However, for the stuff that's actually in operations and exposed to the net the users are likely to be the only ones who can actually take action, especially if the only possible action is to disconnect it.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: There will always be another bug..

            "However, for the stuff that's actually in operations and exposed to the net the users are likely to be the only ones who can actually take action, especially if the only possible action is to disconnect it."

            Which means it's NOT an option because the average user won't care. And if their ISP cuts them off, they'll say they're being denied service they paid for and the lawyers will get involved.

    2. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Re: There will always be another bug..

      The solution is obvious. Avoid unnecesary complexity, like UEFI.

      These days you can hack the HDD bios, the MB bios.. the network card bios.. and you will never notice.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: There will always be another bug..

        "The solution is obvious. Avoid unnecesary complexity, like UEFI."

        And if the complexity is NECESSARY? Say for legal reasons (say, being REQUIRED to be able to upgrade the system in case the baseline has an exploit in it)?

    3. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Re: There will always be another bug..

      While I could do nice things with an internet connected fridge, I find the idea of having to patch my fridge not appealing, buy appaling.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: There will always be another bug..

      as a colleague once said: Fix one bug, grow 2 more.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Root all the android things

    Hopefully someone uses this as a universal root tool for android to unlock us from manufacture / carrier lock down hell.

    Root all the things....

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Root all the android things

      And then all the root-aware apps stop functioning, or have you forgotten that's a rising concern in Android apps these days?

  12. quxinot Silver badge

    You can tell this one is serious.

    It's got a logo and everything!!

    1. Daggerchild Silver badge

      In the future, bug reports won't be taken seriously unless they have a logo. The better the logo, the more serious the bug!

      This bug report was delayed by weeks because the logo was held up in marketing after focus group feedback.

  13. Bucky 2

    Real life happened! Let's call for blood! Festival! Festival!

  14. andy 103

    But I thought Linux was the height of security

    *laughs*

    Yeah, clearly.

    And with Linus swearing about people writing crappy code, then this happens... Oh the irony.

    1. Donkey Molestor X

      Re: But I thought Linux was the height of security

      > *laughs*

      > Yeah, clearly.

      > And with Linus swearing about people writing crappy code, then this happens... Oh the irony.

      didn't you get the memo from The Register Linus Fellation Brigade? you should NEVER develop systematically and you should NEVER automate regression testing. you never blame the defective system or defective processes. just blame whatever developer fights back the least from your bullying.

      all you need is to get yourself a project manager who is a foul-mouthed Finnish butter-troll to swear incoherently at your developers whenever the heinous spaghetti code fails!

      just do the opposite of everything discussed in this article (https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff?show_rev_content) and then throw your shitty OS over the fence to cause trillions of dollars of damage in the real world.

      it's the Linus way!

      1. David Nash Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: But I thought Linux was the height of security

        "throw your shitty OS over the fence to cause trillions of dollars of damage in the real world"

        Really? Is that what happened?

      2. JLV Silver badge

        >throw your shitty OS

        cue for... howls of outrage by the Windows community...

        I guess it's only fair though. When your cherished systems incur bugs frequently and gets jeered at (by folks who often think their toys are perfect), you just want to lash out at your tormentors when you get a rare opportunity to do so.

        There, there, let it out. Don't hold back. You'll feel all better now.

        ;-)

        Peace on both camps. No one's perfect and Linux users could use the humility to be more vigilant and not think they are automagically immune.

  15. john mullee
    WTF?

    43759 commits behind torvalds:master

    https://github.com/sashalevin/linux-stable-security

    This branch is 43759 commits behind torvalds:master. // Latest commit 92c19ea on Apr 29

    ok ..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 43759 commits behind torvalds:master

      Out of interest, what repository is that? If you think that official trees live on Github, you'd be mistaken, you might want to look here.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. AdamWill

    Routers etc. e tc.

    "Unfortunately, builds of the vulnerable kernel at the heart of countless millions of routers, Internet-of-Things gadgets and other embedded devices remain vulnerable"

    meh, I wouldn't worry too much about those in this case. They don't really do much meaningful privilege separation anyway, and you're usually not going to have remote access as an unprivileged user enabled. Local root privesc bugs are most important on systems with lots of stuff running unprivileged and remotely accessible...

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Routers etc. e tc.

      Until you can pwn a million of them all at once and then sic the whole mess army-ant-style at your target, which is precisely what's happening now. An army ant may be tiny, but anyone or anyTHING who disregards a mass of them doesn't live for long.

  19. TeeCee Gold badge
    Alert

    Let me fix that.

    "....Internet-of-Things gadgets and other embedded devices remain vulnerable – and many will be difficult to patchwill never get patched."

  20. Richard Lloyd

    No Red Hat patch yet

    Despite the article claiming Red Hat have a patch out, the article link is only to the CVE announcement on Red Hat's site. If you check the Bugzilla bug for it here:

    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384344

    You'll see that there isn't actually a patch out yet as of Monday morning UK time. There is a (fiddly) mitigation procedure involving systemtap documented at the above URL, but no new kernel RPM to fix the issue yet. This means that CentOS and other RHEL clones are also unpatched at this moment in time as well.

  21. fredesmite Bronze badge

    false alarm IMO

    I tried the dirtyc0w.c test on Centos 6.6 and it passed

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I never had these problems with punch cards.

    I bet if you disconnected your computer from the Internet it would never be comprised either.

POST COMMENT House rules

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

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019