Tiberium
Wait, this is a joke, right?

> A remote unauthenticated attacker can silently replace existing printers’ (or install new ones) IPP urls with a malicious one, resulting in arbitrary command execution (on the computer) *when a print job is started (from that computer).*

(emphasis mine)

There's no way this is 9.9 when Heartbleed was just 7.5...

EDIT: Wanted to add why I think he has overblown this way too much. His original tweet stated "* Unauthenticated RCE vs all GNU/Linux systems (plus others)" but as we can see this isn't nearly the case as on a lot of distros CUPS only listens on loopback or isn't installed at all.

Another point:

> Full disclosure, I’ve been scanning the entire public internet IPv4 ranges several times a day for weeks, sending the UDP packet and logging whatever connected back. And I’ve got back connections from hundreds of thousands of devices, with peaks of 200-300K concurrent devices

If I'm understanding this correctly, he only found 300 thousand open CUPS instances in the whole public IPv4. Remember - the CUPS server needs to receive a print job in order for the RCE to happen, which I doubt most of these instances will get.

RGBCube
Anyone exposing CUPS to the internet is living a level of not giving a fuck that CVEs cannot reach.
DanMcInerney
Depending on your interpretation of the Scope metric in CVSSv3, this is either an 8.8 or a 9.6 CVSS to be more accurate.

In summary, there's a service (CUPS) that is exposed to the LAN (0.0.0.0) on at least some desktop flavors of Linux and runs as root that is vulnerable to unauth RCE. CUPS is not a default service on most of the server-oriented linux machines like Ubuntu Server or CentOS, but does appear to start by default on most desktop flavors of linux. To trigger the RCE the user on the vulnerable linux machine must print a document after being exploited.

Evilsocket claims to have had 100's of thousands of callbacks showing that despite the fact most of us have probably never printed anything from Linux, the impact is enough to create a large botnet regardless.

jesprenj
I panicked a little when I heard the news as I run a cupsd open on the Internet. But as it turns out, the issue is misrepresented in headlines, just like here. This is not an issue in the core cupsd, but in a separate package/component, called cups-browsed. My distribution of choice for servers, Gentoo Linux, ships cups-browsed in a separate package which I had not installed, meaning I, as well as most other cups users that did not install this additional package, am not affected by this bug.

Saying that all systems running cups can be hacked is a misrepresentation of the scale of the issue.

marcodiego
Resuming:

  1 - cups-browsed is able to install printers automatically (without the requirement of user confirmation) by listening to UDP packets on port 631.
  2 - Attacker uses this "feature" to install a fake printer with a custom driver (which is also installed without user confirmation and can be downloaded from an arbitrary host) which specifies the "command to run" when a print job is sent.
  3 - User prints something in the fake printer and the "command to run" is executed.
ruuda
> That a lot is expected and taken for granted from the security researchers by triagers that behave like you have to “prove to be worth listening to” while in reality they barely care to process and understand what you are saying

The unfortunate reality is that for every well-researched report like this one, you get 57 low-effort spam reports that hope to extract a bug bounty reward, or get a CVE discovery listed on their resume. Especially with the rise of LLMs that kind of spam can easily trick you. It's a sad situation, but I don't entirely blame developers for being skeptic.

cvhc
While in this case distros include cups-browsed maybe as a feature, I always feel it's a bad thing Ubuntu/Debian (and maybe all deb-based distros?) automatically bring up almost all services upon installation. This means you can install a package and accidentially open another network service that's installed as a dependency.

You probably already know exim4 (to be fair it listens to only localhost by default, so maybe not a big deal). I just tried to install cups-browsed on one of my Debian machine, and it brought up two services that listens to 0.0.0.0 (cups-browsed and avahi).

This is not the case for Arch/Gentoo and CentOS-like distros.

dfc
The original CVSS score on Twitter indicated that user interaction was not required. However reading the RCE chain on the page says:

Wait for a print job to be sent to our fake printer for the PPD directives, and therefore the command, to be executed.

If Alice never hits print it seems like a print job will never be triggered. Am I missing something? I'm not questioning evilsocket, I'm trying to check my understanding.

bborud
Every time I need to print something on MacOS I am reminded of how much I hate printers and any printer related software. I've been messing around with computers for 40 years now and goddamnit, every decade printers become more of a pain in the neck.
spookie
Of course its CUPS.

Saying it affects all "Linux" systems is just wild.

Imagine even having that thing on your system to begin with.

peanut-walrus
Tried it out, looks like at least on Debian the filter gets invoked with limited user privileges, so not world-ending, but still bad. And it does require user interaction, but my gut feeling is that this can be bypassed with some cleverness.

However, this is only for this particular exploit. The behaviour where cups-browsed automatically downloads and installs printers from random untrusted places on the internet is insane, especially as it does it for all printers it discovers on the local network by default. At minimum anyone on a LAN can cause a DoS type attack against all Linux workstations on the same LAN by just advertising a few million printers via zeroconf.

sprayk
> I had no idea Linux just added anything found on a network before the user can even accept or be notified. The more you know!

Windows does this too, I believe. At least it did it with a Xerox laser printer I bought and the Brother printer at my friend's place.

farhanhubble
Irrespective of the severity assigned it's a good and simple case study for any programmer, engineer or not, building drivers and low-level stuff or not. Alongside it, and the iconic "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit", reading "The Bugs We Need to Kill"[1], makes a programmer much more aware that every program is prone to manipulation via its inputs.

[1]: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/login_aug...

ruthmarx
This is a ridiculously over hyped vulnerability, the most over-hyped I've seen in a long time.

Still, kudos to the author who found it, it's going to definitely be a career boost with all the world is ending headlines.

whywhywhywhy
From DEFCON 1 to “it’s absolutely nothing” in 5 hours
scblock
This is a lot less "exciting" than the LOOK AT ME MOM I MADE AN EXPLOIT social media posts implied.
LZ2DMV
Everyone, please go to your respective data centers, locate your rack and unplug the printer from the server.
nottorp
> After some googling I found out that cups-browsed is indeed part of the CUPS system and it is responsible for discovering new printers and automatically adding them to the system. Very interesting, I had no idea Linux just added anything found on a network before the user can even accept or be notified. The more you know!

I don't know, last time i bought a new printer i plugged it into my LAN and my Apple machines automatically showed it to me and I could print to it.

Why blame Linux?

computer23
Is there a recommended (best practice) way to nmap scan your network for vulnerable machines, just to be safe?

From Red Hat's statement: > Red Hat rates these issues with a severity impact of Important. While all versions of RHEL are affected, it is important to note that affected packages are not vulnerable in their default configuration.

Basically, Red Hat machines aren't vulnerable unless "the cups-browsed service has manually been enabled or started."

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-response-openprinting...

smokel
This vulnerability seems to be pretty hard to actually exploit, but for those of you who are running Ubuntu on their desktops, consider enabling a firewall, which is as easy as:

  sudo ufw enable
Beats me why this is not the default.
blueflow
There used to be a timeframe (before like 2020) where you could use network printers without any extra software: Open your Document in Firefox, print to postscript, and then netcat that postscript to your network printer port 9100. This is the "AppSocket" protocol.

Unfortunately, Firefox removed that feature, and port 9100 is now clobbered by the Prometheus node exporter. If you accidentally add a AppSocket capable printer to Prometheus it will print out HTTP headers every other minute.

The good times are over, but on the other side, having to print something has gotten quite rare.

jonjojojon
I am slightly confused. If I am using a linux laptop with cups do I need to do anything besides update? Is there a sane way to print from the linux desktop. I unfortunately need to regularly print, and often from public wifi.
hacker_homie
I though this was going to be NetworkManager the way they were hyping it up.
nirui
Maybe the report was overblown, but I found it amusing that CUPS related facilities is shipped and activated by default in a lot of Linux distros (including Gnome Fedora in my case). I've never printed anything on this computer and yet there is this `cupsd` process running as root and listening TCP port 631 on local interface.

OK, sure, the program itself maybe safe (enough to run with root while listening a local port that everybody uses this computer can access), but is it really THAT evil if you don't run it 24/7 and instead only enable it when the user is actively using it?

shirro
I checked 5 linux desktop/laptops here and none of them had cups-browsed or port 631 exposed. They are all able to print to a network printer. The vulnerability is real though perhaps the impact is exaggerated. Distros that tend towards installing a minimal selection of packages and services are less exposed.
ajdude
Do networked printers themselves run CUPS? E.g. a Brother or HP laserjet plugged into a LAN.
chrononaut
Queue everyone going to Shodan and investigating how many systems have port 631 on UDP open..
beginnings
my grandparents who are still printing things like its the 90s might be at risk, if they have installed CUPS that is

has the president been briefed yet?

cp9
we should fix this, CUPS is used in a bunch of consumer hardware

it's not a complete disaster like it was implied to be though

0x_rs
I don't believe this warranted all the fearmongering even if the intention was to get more attention to it and a faster resolution process, it's not far from cry wolf. Initial CVE scores are very arbitrary. CUPS is a well-known liability when exposed to unsafe networks. CVSS scores seem far from perfect. The WebP zero-day, a zero-click vulnerability that was being exploited in the wild and affecting nearly every user device made in the past decade, most of which will never be properly patched from it, received an initial 10.0, and decreased to a meager 8.8 (CVSS:3.1, and would be higher using 4.0).
udev4096
A basic firewall configuration could easily prevent this even if you are running the vulnerable version
guluarte
This is nowhere near as severe as the Heartbleed bug.
fizlebit
It is bad if you print from a Linux laptop that uses WiFi isn’t it?
bogwog
I remember there was some like viral marketing thing some company did a while back where they had a website where they had a webcam pointed at a printer, and anything printed would go on a conveyer belt and fall into a literal dumpster fire. Users could submit stuff on their website and see it printed and burned live.

...anyways, maybe they were vulnerable to this attack at the time?

neuroelectron
Everybody saying this is nothing burger is absolutely wrong. This is not overhyped. A lot of comments like, well my distro doesn't do this, and well yeah nobody uses printers anymore. A print server is design to be exposed. Office networks will use one and they have important data. You would think there would be some kind of hardening.

Honestly, this looks intentional.

pabs3
Is printing obsolete yet?
Dachande663
I suppose the real question now is: did the author give it a 9.9 out of ignorance or malice/ego?
develatio
I'm gonna give this a 10/10 meh. Not up to all the hype that was created around it.
beginnings
[flagged]
giovanni_or2
This is a nothing-burger...
andersa
So just to make sure I understand correctly, this is a nothingburger, right? No important server has a printer attached. Any basic firewall would block this traffic.
udev4096