Sign upLogin

rapid7/metasploit-framework

View on GitHub
Star
modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb

Summary

Maintainability
D
2 days
Test Coverage

Method check has a Cognitive Complexity of 26 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def check
    arch = kernel_hardware

    # Could we potentially support x86? Yes, potentially. Will we? Well considering the 5.7 kernel was released
    # in 2020 and official support for x64 kernels ended in 2012 with
Severity: Minor
Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 3 hrs to fix

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

  • Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
  • Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
  • Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

Method initialize has 57 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def initialize(info = {})
    super(
      update_info(
        info,
        'Name' => 'Linux eBPF ALU32 32-bit Invalid Bounds Tracking LPE',
Severity: Major
Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

    Method check has 56 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

      def check
    arch = kernel_hardware

    # Could we potentially support x86? Yes, potentially. Will we? Well considering the 5.7 kernel was released
    # in 2020 and official support for x64 kernels ended in 2012 with
    Severity: Major
    Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

      Method exploit has a Cognitive Complexity of 16 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

        def exploit
    if !datastore['ForceExploit'] && is_root?
      fail_with(Failure::BadConfig, 'Session already has root privileges. Set ForceExploit to override.')
    end
      Severity: Minor
      Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

      Cognitive Complexity

      Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

      A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

      • Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
      • Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
      • Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

      Further reading

      Method exploit has 47 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

        def exploit
    if !datastore['ForceExploit'] && is_root?
      fail_with(Failure::BadConfig, 'Session already has root privileges. Set ForceExploit to override.')
    end
      Severity: Minor
      Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 1 hr to fix

        Avoid too many return statements within this method.
        Open

                return CheckCode::Safe('Running a Fedora system with a kernel before kernel version 5.7 where the vulnerability was introduced')
        Severity: Major
        Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

          Avoid too many return statements within this method.
          Open

                  return CheckCode::Safe('Target Ubuntu kernel version is running a 5.8.x build however it has updated to a patched version!')
          Severity: Major
          Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

            Avoid too many return statements within this method.
            Open

                    return CheckCode::Unknown('Unknown target kernel version, recommend manually checking if target kernel is vulnerable.')
            Severity: Major
            Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

              Avoid too many return statements within this method.
              Open

                    return CheckCode::Safe('Kernel config does not include CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL')
              Severity: Major
              Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

                Avoid too many return statements within this method.
                Open

                      return CheckCode::Detected('Could not retrieve kernel config')
                Severity: Major
                Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

                  Avoid too many return statements within this method.
                  Open

                          return CheckCode::Safe("Target Fedora kernel version is #{major_version}-#{minor_version} which is not vulnerable!")
                  Severity: Major
                  Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

                    Avoid too many return statements within this method.
                    Open

                          return CheckCode::Unknown("Target is not a known target, so we can't check if the target is vulnerable or not!")
                    Severity: Major
                    Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

                      Avoid too many return statements within this method.
                      Open

                              return CheckCode::Safe('Target Fedora system is running a 5.11.20 kernel however it has been patched!')
                      Severity: Major
                      Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb - About 30 mins to fix

                        Similar blocks of code found in 22 locations. Consider refactoring.
                        Open

                                  [ 'CVE', '2021-3490' ],
          [ 'URL', 'https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/05/11/11' ],
          [ 'URL', 'https://github.com/chompie1337/Linux_LPE_eBPF_CVE-2021-3490' ], # Original PoC
          [ 'URL', 'https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2020/4/8/cve-2020-8835-linux-kernel-privilege-escalation-via-improper-ebpf-program-verification' ], # Discussess the techniques used to gain arbitrary R/W in kernel.
          [ 'URL', 'https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=049c4e13714ecbca567b4d5f6d563f05d431c80e' ],
                        Severity: Major
                        Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/cve_2021_3490_ebpf_alu32_bounds_check_lpe.rb and 21 other locations - About 20 mins to fix
                        modules/auxiliary/dos/http/hashcollision_dos.rb on lines 36..44
                        modules/auxiliary/scanner/http/wp_woocommerce_payments_add_user.rb on lines 61..69
                        modules/exploits/android/browser/webview_addjavascriptinterface.rb on lines 58..66
                        modules/exploits/freebsd/local/rtld_execl_priv_esc.rb on lines 57..65
                        modules/exploits/linux/http/apache_superset_cookie_sig_rce.rb on lines 32..40
                        modules/exploits/linux/http/zimbra_cpio_cve_2022_41352.rb on lines 44..52
                        modules/exploits/linux/local/bpf_priv_esc.rb on lines 48..56
                        modules/exploits/linux/local/glibc_realpath_priv_esc.rb on lines 48..56
                        modules/exploits/linux/local/systemtap_modprobe_options_priv_esc.rb on lines 43..51
                        modules/exploits/linux/misc/cisco_ios_xe_rce.rb on lines 52..65
                        modules/exploits/linux/misc/lprng_format_string.rb on lines 26..34
                        modules/exploits/linux/upnp/dlink_upnp_msearch_exec.rb on lines 70..78
                        modules/exploits/multi/browser/java_jre17_exec.rb on lines 43..51
                        modules/exploits/multi/http/git_client_command_exec.rb on lines 47..55
                        modules/exploits/multi/http/vtiger_soap_upload.rb on lines 33..41
                        modules/exploits/windows/browser/ms13_022_silverlight_script_object.rb on lines 40..48
                        modules/exploits/windows/browser/webex_ucf_newobject.rb on lines 40..48
                        modules/exploits/windows/fileformat/allplayer_m3u_bof.rb on lines 31..39
                        modules/exploits/windows/http/exchange_chainedserializationbinder_rce.rb on lines 45..54
                        modules/exploits/windows/http/exchange_ecp_dlp_policy.rb on lines 49..57
                        modules/exploits/windows/http/netgear_nms_rce.rb on lines 32..40

                        Duplicated Code

                        Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:

                        Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.

                        When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).

                        Tuning

                        This issue has a mass of 28.

                        We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.

                        The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.

                        If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.

                        See codeclimate-duplication's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml.

                        Refactorings

                        Further Reading

                        There are no issues that match your filters.

                        Category
                        Status