Beware the Nvidia blob

kingbeowulf · 08-04-2012, 01:03 AM

Don't panic. Tempest in a teapot. I would assume most on LQ are smart enough to run any stupid ass software they find, or run freaky scripts in Firefox, etc. Just because there is an possible exploit does not mean that exploit is practical.

Quote:

People running the proprietary NVidia graphics driver on systems with untrusted users ...

So how many people have access to your box, who are they, and why is your server running X?

273 · 08-04-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingbeowulf

Don't panic. Tempest in a teapot. I would assume most on LQ are smart enough to run any stupid ass software they find, or run freaky scripts in Firefox, etc. Just because there is an possible exploit does not mean that exploit is practical.

It's not quite that straight forward though. How do you know for certain the a site you are visiting is safe to allow scripting? Legitimate sites are hacked all the time even linuxquestions could, theoretically, end up running a malicious script. Knowing this hole is there means that running any script is a risk and allowing WebGL more so.

mats_b_tegner · 08-04-2012, 09:40 PM

NVIDIA has released a patch and an updated driver:
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3140

Update: 2012-08-08
The 295 driver is also updated to 295.71.

brianL · 08-05-2012, 06:23 AM

This is all I get now, with the 304.32 driver:

Code:

brian@slackdesk:~/temp$ ./exploit[*] IDT offset at 0xffffffff81955000[*] Abusing nVidia...
brian@slackdesk:~/temp$

Compare it to output in post #7, with 302.17.

H_TeXMeX_H · 08-05-2012, 07:26 AM

Yeah, well, they fixed it, which I did not expect so soon.

kingbeowulf · 08-06-2012, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mats_b_tegner

NVIDIA has released a patch and an updated driver:
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3140

Thanks. One of the more usefull comments in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingbeowulf
Don't panic. Tempest in a teapot. I would assume most on LQ are smart enough to run any stupid ass software they find, or run freaky scripts in Firefox, etc. Just because there is an possible exploit does not mean that exploit is practical.

It's not quite that straight forward though. How do you know for certain the a site you are visiting is safe to allow scripting? Legitimate sites are hacked all the time even linuxquestions could, theoretically, end up running a malicious script. Knowing this hole is there means that running any script is a risk and allowing WebGL more so.

I respectfully disagree. Your argument fails the test of logic: Yes, that could happen since any activity involves some risk. We need only identify the possible risks and develop systems to deal with that risk. We do not need to run arround in a panic expecting the worst.

Signed
- Optimist

273 · 08-06-2012, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingbeowulf

Thanks. One of the more usefull comments in this thread.

I respectfully disagree. Your argument fails the test of logic: Yes, that could happen since any activity involves some risk. We need only identify the possible risks and develop systems to deal with that risk. We do not need to run arround in a panic expecting the worst.

Signed
- Optimist

I never said anyone should run around in a panic. What I said was any site can be running malicious code, so it is not as simple as avoiding "stupid ass software" and "freaky scripts". Legitimate sites are hacked every day to serve malware. If you were aware of this risk then fine, I was pointing it out because there are people out there of the opinion "I only visit legitimate websites so I'm safe" which is simply not true. How you choose to deal with risk is your business but acknowledging it exists is part of the risk management process.