3 ms·
Huh. I thought the second issue did not have an exploit? That when set, all would happen was that running "X Y" via a shell could instead run "Y > X " ?
by Erwin 12y ago
Huh. I thought the second issue did not have an exploit? That when set, all would happen was that running "X Y" via a shell could instead run "Y > X " ?
- scintill76 12y agoIf the attacker can control a list of arguments and an env var value, you're back to arbitrary command execution, albeit redirected somewhere. That sounds suspiciously insecure even without bash vulnerabilities, though. Would be interesting if GP knows what they used.
- shawabawa3 12y agoI have no idea, I wasn't able to access any logs or anything. It's possible they had already installed a backdoor using the first vulnerability before I patched it, or perhaps something else entirely (though that's a little too coincidental)