Grab security updates for your Linux distributions because there's a security hole that can be easily exploited by rogue users, intruders, & malicious software to gain root access.
SHARE
back to BLOG

Is Looney Tunables [CVE-2023-4911] as bad as everyone says?

Grab security updates for your Linux distributions because there's a security hole that can be easily exploited by rogue users, intruders, and malicious software to gain root access and take over the box.

What is Looney Tunables (CVE-2023-4911)?

Looney Tunables (CVE-2023-4911) is a buffer overflow vulnerability in the GNU C Library's handling of an environmental variable. It was spotted by Qualys, which has gone public with some of the details now that patches are being emitted.  

This ‘Looney Tunables' could pose a risk of unauthorized data access, system alterations, potential data theft, and takeover of vulnerable systems, especially in the IoT and embedded computing.

What systems are at risk?

Fedora, Ubuntu, and Debian are the systems most at risk from the bug (CVE-2023-4911 CVSS 7.8). It's found in the GNU C Library (glibc) in the GNU system, which is found in most systems running the Linux kernel.

Glibc is a library that defines the system calls and other basic functionalities, such as open, malloc, printf, exit, etc., that a typical program requires. The vulnerability occurs in how the dynamic loader of glibc processes the GLIBC_TUNABLES environment variable, the researchers said, thus giving the bug its name.

Should you apply the Looney Tunables patch?

The potential ramifications show the importance of patching (even though the researchers chose not to release their exploit). They did, however, release a technical breakdown of the vulnerability. Active exploitation has been observed by threat actors who are chaining this vulnerability with other vulnerabilities which grant initial access.

While Looney Tunables (CVE-2023-4911) shouldn’t be ignored because it allows unprivileged users on Linux hosts to get administrative access when they shouldn't be able to, it’s not headline news. While it’s a real issue, the attacker has to have a level of access to the server already – in other words it’s not remotely exploitable from your web application or randomly across the internet.

If you have an environment where you give people unprivileged accounts on your server then of course you should mitigate or patch. If you don’t, it's only useful to an attacker as a later stage of an attack, when they already have access. Our advice? Don’t lose any sleep over it.  

Release Date
Level of Ideal
Comments
Before CVE details are published
🥳
Limited public information is available about the vulnerability.

Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers, threat actors have to actively research type of vulnerability, location in vulnerable software and build an associated exploit.

Tenable release checks for 47.43% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 32.96%.
Day of CVE publish
😊
Vulnerability information is publicly accessible.

Red teamers, security researchers, detection engineers and threat actors now have access to some of the information they were previously having to hunt themselves, speeding up potential exploit creation.

Tenable release checks for 17.12% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 17.69%.
First week since CVE publish
😐
Vulnerability information has been publicly available for up to 1 week.

The likelihood that exploitation in the wild is going to be happening is steadily increasing.

Tenable release checks for 10.9% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 20.69%.
Between 1 week and 1 month since CVE publish
🥺
Vulnerability information has been publicly available for up to 1 month, and some very clever people have had time to craft an exploit.

We’re starting to lose some of the benefit of rapid, automated vulnerability detection.

Tenable release checks for 9.58% of the CVEs they cover in this window, and Greenbone release 12.43%.
After 1 month since CVE publish
😨
Information has been publicly available for more than 31 days.

Any detection released a month after the details are publicly available is decreasing in value for me.

Tenable release checks for 14.97% of the CVEs they cover over a month after the CVE details have been published, and Greenbone release 16.23%.

With this information in mind, I wanted to check what is the delay for both Tenable and Greenbone to release a detection for their scanners. The following section will focus on vulnerabilities which:

These are the ones where an attacker can point their exploit code at your vulnerable system and gain unauthorised access.

We’ve seen previously that Tenable have remote checks for 643 critical vulnerabilities, and OpenVAS have remote checks for 450 critical vulnerabilities. Tenable release remote checks for critical vulnerabilities within 1 month of the details being made public 58.4% of the time, but Greenbone release their checks within 1 month 76.8% of the time. So, even though OpenVAS has fewer checks for those critical vulnerabilities, you are more likely to get them within 1 month of the details being made public. Let’s break that down further.

In Figure 10 we can see the absolute number of remote checks released on a given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability has been published. What you can immediately see is that both Tenable and OpenVAS release the majority of their checks on or before the CVE details are made public; Tenable have released checks for 247 CVEs, and OpenVAS have released checks for 144 CVEs. Then since 2010 Tenable have remote released checks for 147 critical CVEs and OpenVAS 79 critical CVEs on the same day as the vulnerability details were published. The number of vulnerabilities then drops off across the first week and drops further after 1 week, as we would hope for in an efficient time-to-release scenario.

Figure 10: Absolute numbers of critical CVEs with a remote check release date from the date a CVE is published

While raw numbers are good, Tenable have a larger number of checks available so it could be unfair to go on raw numbers alone. It’s potentially more important to understand the likelihood that OpenVAS or Tenable will release a check of a vulnerability on any given day after a CVE for a critical vulnerability is released. In Figure 11 we can see that Tenable release 61% their checks on or before the date that a CVE is published, and OpenVAS release a shade under 50% of their checks on or before the day that a CVE is published.

Figure 11: Percentage chance of delay for critical vulnerabilities

So, since 2010 Tenable has more frequently released their checks before or on the same day as the CVE details have been published for critical vulnerabilities. While Tenable is leading at this point, Greenbone’s community feed still gets a considerable percentage of their checks out on or before day 0.

I thought I’d go another step further and try and see if I could identify any trend in each organisations release delay, are they getting better year-on-year or are their releases getting later? In Figure 12 I’ve taken the mean delay for critical vulnerabilities per year and plotted them. The mean as a metric is particularly influenced by outliers in a data set, so I expected some wackiness and limited the mean to only checks released 180 days prior to a CVE being published and 31 days after a CVE being published. These seem to me like reasonable limits, as anything greater than 6 months prior to CVE details being released is potentially a quirk of the check details and anything after a 1-month delay is less important for us.

What can we take away from Figure 12?

Figure 12: Release delay year-on-year (lower is better)

With the larger number of checks, and still being able to release a greater percentage of their remote checks for critical vulnerabilities Tenable could win this category. However, the delay time from 2019 and 2020 going to OpenVAS, and the trend lines being so close, I am going to declare this one a tie. It’s a tie.

The takeaway from this is that both vendors are getting their checks out the majority of the time either before the CVE details are published or on the day the details are published. This is overwhelmingly positive for both scanning solutions. Over time both also appear to be releasing remote checks for critical vulnerabilities more quickly.

Written by

Recommended articles

Ready to get started with your 14-day trial?
try for free