Archive

Archive for the ‘Linux’ Category

Basics of a Bash action game

February 24th, 2014

If you want to write an action game in bash, you need the ability to check for user input without actually waiting for it. While bash doesn’t let you poll the keyboard in a great way, it does let you wait for input for a miniscule amount of time with read -t 0.0001.

Here’s a snippet that demonstrates this by bouncing some text back and forth, and letting the user control position and color. It also sets (and unsets) the necessary terminal settings for this to look good:

#!/usr/bin/env bash

# Reset terminal on exit
trap 'tput cnorm; tput sgr0; clear' EXIT

# invisible cursor, no echo
tput civis
stty -echo

text="j/k to move, space to color"
max_x=$(($(tput cols) - ${#text}))
dir=1 x=1 y=$(($(tput lines)/2))
color=3

while sleep 0.05 # GNU specific!
do
    # move and change direction when hitting walls
    (( x == 0 || x == max_x )) && \
        ((dir *= -1))
    (( x += dir ))


    # read all the characters that have been buffered up
    while IFS= read -rs -t 0.0001 -n 1 key
    do
        [[ $key == j ]] && (( y++ ))
        [[ $key == k ]] && (( y-- ))
        [[ $key == " " ]] && color=$((color%7+1))
    done

    # batch up all terminal output for smoother action
    framebuffer=$(
        clear
        tput cup "$y" "$x"
        tput setaf "$color"
        printf "%s" "$text"
    )

    # dump to screen
    printf "%s" "$framebuffer"
done

Advanced Linux-related things, Programming , , ,

Paste shell script, get feedback: ShellCheck project update

June 30th, 2013

tl;dr: ShellCheck is a bash/sh static analysis and linting tool. Paste a shell command or script on ShellCheck.net and get feedback about many common issues, both in scripts that currently fail and scripts that appear to work just fine.

There’s been a lot of progress since I first posted about it seven months ago. It has a new home on ShellCheck.net with a simplified and improved interface, and the parser has been significantly bugfixed so that parsing errors for correct code are now fairly rare.

However, the best thing is that it can detect a heaping bunch of new problems! This post mentions merely a subset of them.

 

Quiz: ShellCheck is aware of many common usage problems. Are you?

  • find . -name *.mp3
  • sudo echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
  • PS1='\e[0;32m\$\e[0m '
  • find . | grep "*.mp3"
  • [ $n > 7 ]
  • [[ $n > 7 ]]
  • tr 'A-Z' 'a-z'
  • cmd 2>&1 > log
  • array=(1, 2, 3)
  • echo $10
  • [[ $a=$b ]]
  • [[ $a = $b ]]
  • progress=$((i/total*100))
  • trap "echo \"Time used: $SECONDS\"" EXIT
  • find dir -exec cp {} /backup && rm {} \;
  • [[ $keep = [yY] ]] && mv file /backup || rm file

 
 
ShellCheck gives more helpful messages for many Bash syntax errors

Bash says ShellCheck points to the exact position and says
: command not found Literal carriage return. Run script through tr -d ‘\r’
unexpected token: `fi’ Can’t have empty then clauses (use ‘true’ as a no-op)
unexpected token `(‘ Shells are space sensitive. Use ‘< <(cmd)', not '<<(cmd)'
unexpected token `(‘ ‘(‘ is invalid here. Did you forget to escape it?
echo foo: command not found This is a &nbsp;. Delete it and retype as space.

 
 
ShellCheck suggests style improvements

Code ShellCheck suggestion
basename "$var" Use parameter expansion instead, such as ${var##*/}
ls | grep 'mp3$' Don’t use ls | grep. Use a glob or a for loop with a condition.
expr 3 + 2 Use $((..)), ${} or [[ ]] in place of antiquated expr.
cat foo | grep bar Useless cat. Consider ‘cmd < file | ..' or 'cmd file | ..' instead.
length=$(echo "$var" | wc -c") See if you can use ${#variable} instead

 
 
ShellCheck recognizes common but wrong attempts at doing things

Code ShellCheck tip
var$n=42 For indirection, use (associative) arrays or ‘read “var$n” <<< "value"'".
(Bash says “var3=42: command not found”)
${var$n} To expand via indirection, use name=”foo$n”; echo “${!name}”
(Bash says “bad substitution”. )
echo 'It\'s time' Are you trying to escape that single quote? echo ‘You’\”re doing it wrong’
(Bash says “unexpected end of file”)
[ grep a b ] Use ‘if cmd; then ..’ to check exit code, or ‘if [[ $(cmd) == .. ]]’ to check output
(Bash says “[: a: binary operator expected”)
var=grep a b To assign the output of a command, use var=$(cmd)
(Bash says “a: command not found”)

 
ShellCheck can help with POSIX sh compliance and bashisms

When a script is declared with #!/bin/sh, ShellCheck checks for POSIX sh compliance, much like checkbashisms.

 
ShellCheck is free software, and can be used online and locally

ShellCheck is of course Free Software, and has a cute cli frontend in addition to the primary online version.

 
ShellCheck wants your feedback and suggestions!
Does ShellCheck give you incorrect suggestions? Does it fail to parse your working code? Is there something it could have warned about, but didn’t? After pasting a script on ShellCheck.net, a tiny “submit feedback” link appears in the top right of the annotated script area. Click it to submit the code plus your comments, and I can take a look!

Basic Linux-related things, Linux , ,

Making bash run DOS/Windows CRLF EOL scripts

January 30th, 2013

If you for any reason use a Windows editor to write scripts, it can be annoying to remember to convert them and bash fails in mysterious ways when you don’t. Let’s just get rid of that problem once and for all:


cat > $'/bin/bash\r' << "EOF"
#!/usr/bin/env bash
script=$1
shift
exec bash <(tr -d '\r' < "$script") "$@"
EOF

This allows you to execute scripts with DOS/Windows \r\n line endings with ./yourscript (but it will fail if the script specifies parameters on the shebang, or if you run it with bash yourscript). It works because from a UNIX point of view, DOS/Windows files specify the interpretter as "bash^M", and we override that to clean the script and run bash on the result.

Of course, you can also replace the helpful exec bash part with echo "Run dos2unix on your file!" >&2 if you'd rather give your users a helpful reminder rather than compatibility or a crazy error.

Basic Linux-related things, Linux , ,

ShellCheck: shell script analysis

December 8th, 2012

Shell scripting is notoriously full of pitfalls, unintuitive behavior and poor error messages. Here are some things you might have experienced:

  • find -exec fails on commands that are perfectly valid
  • 0==1 is apparently true
  • Comparisons are always false, and write files while failing
  • Variable values are available inside loops, but reset afterwards
  • Looping over filenames with spaces fails, and quoting doesn’t help

 

ShellCheck is my latest project. It will check shell scripts for all of the above, and also tries to give helpful tips and suggestions for otherwise working ones. You can paste your script and have it checked it online, or you can downloaded it and run it locally.

Other things it checks for includes reading from and redirecting to a file in the same pipeline, useless uses of cat, apparent variable use that won’t expand, too much or too little quoting in [[ ]], not quoting globs passed to find, and instead of just saying “syntax error near unexpected token `fi’”, it points to the relevant if statement and suggests that you might be missing a ‘then’.

It’s still in the early stages, but has now reached the point where it can be useful. The online version has a feedback button (in the top right of your annotated script), so feel free to try it out and submit suggestions!

Basic Linux-related things, Linux, Programming , ,

Approaches to data recovery

September 8th, 2012

There are a lot of howtos and tutorials for using data recovery tools in Linux, but far less on how to choose a recovery tool or approach in the first place. Here’s an overview with suggestions for which route to go or tool to use:

Cause Outlook Tools
Forgotten login password Fantastic Any livecd
This barely qualifies as data recovery, but is included for completeness. If you forget the login password, you can just boot a livecd and mount the drive to access the files. You can also chroot into it and reset the password. Google “linux forgot password”.
Accidentally deleting files in use Excellent lsof, cp
When accidentally deleting a file that is still in use by some process — like an active log file or the source of a video you’re encoding — make sure the process doesn’t exit (sigstop if necessary) and copy the file from the /proc file handle. Google “lsof recover deleted files”
Accidentally deleting other files Fair for harddisks, bad for SSDs testdisk, ext3grep, extundelete
When deleting a file that’s not currently being held open, stop as much disk activity as you can to prevent the data from being overwritten. If you’re using an SSD, the data was probably irrevocably cleared within seconds, so bad luck there. Proceed with an fs specific undeletion tool: Testdisk can undelete NTFS, VFAT and ext2, extundelete/ext3grep can help with ext3 and ext4. Google “YourFS undeletion”. If you can’t find an undeletion tool for your file systems, or if it fails, try PhotoRec.
Trashing the MBR or deleting partitions Excellent gpart (note: not gparted), testdisk
If you delete a partition with fdisk or recover the MBR from a backup while forgetting that it also contains a partition table, gpart or testdisk will usually easily recover them. If you overwrite any more than the first couple of kilobytes though, it’s a different ballgame. Just don’t confuse gpart (guess partitions) with gparted (gtk/graphical partition editor). Google “recover partition table”.
Reformatting a file system Depends on fs e2fsck, photorec, testdisk
If you format the wrong partition, recovery depends on the old and new file system. Try finding unformat/recovery tools for your old fs. Accidentally formatting a ext3 fs to ntfs (like Windows helpfully suggests when it detects a Linux fs) can often be almost completely reverted by running fsck with an alternate superblock. Google “ext3 alternate superblock recovery” or somesuch.

Reformatting ext2/3/4 with ext2/3/4 will tend to overwrite the superblocks, making this harder. Consider PhotoRec.

Repartition and reinstall Depends on progress
If you ran a distro installer and accidentally repartitioned and reformatted a disk, try treating it as a case of deleted partitions plus reformatted partitions as described above. Chances of recovery are smaller the more files the installer copied to the partitions. If all else fails, PhotoRec.
Bad sectors and drive errors Ok, depending on extent ddrescue
If the drive has errors, use ddrescue to get as much of the data as possible onto another drive, then treat it as a corrupted file system. Try the fs’ fsck tool, or if the drive is highly corrupted, PhotoRec.
Lost encryption key Very bad bash, cryptsetup
I don’t know of any tools made for attempting to crack a LUKS password, though you can generate permutations and script a simple cracker if you have limited number of permutations (“it was Swordfish with some l33t, and a few numbers at the end”). If you have no idea, or if your encryption software uses TPM (rare for Linux), you’re screwed.
Reformatted or partially overwritten LUKS partition Horrible
LUKS uses your passphrase to encrypt a master key, and stores this info at the start of the partition. If this gets overwritten, you’re screwed even if you know the passphrase.
Other kinds of corruptions or unknown FS Indeterminable PhotoRec, strings, grep
PhotoRec searches by file signature, and can therefore recover files from a boatload of FS and scenarios, though you’ll often lose filenames and hierarchies. If you have important ASCII data, strings can dump ASCII text regardless of FS, and you can grep that as a last resort.

If you have other suggestions for scenarios, tools or approaches, leave a commment. Otherwise, I’ll wish you a speedy recovery!

Basic Linux-related things, Linux , ,

Why Bash is like that: Subshells

August 22nd, 2012

Bash can seem pretty random and weird at times, but most of what people see as quirks have very logical (if not very good) explanations behind them. This series of posts looks at some of them.

# I run this script, but afterwards my PATH and current dir hasn't changed!

#!/bin/bash
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/local/bin
cd /opt/games/

or more interestingly

# Why does this always say 0? 
n=0
cat file | while read line; do (( n++ )); done
echo $n

In the first case, you can add a echo "Path is now $PATH", and see the expected path. In the latter case, you can put a echo $n in the loop, and it will count up as you’d expect, but at the end you’ll still be left with 0.

To make things even more interesting, here are the effects of running these two examples (or equivalents) in different shells:

set in script set in pipeline
Bash No effect No effect
Ksh/Zsh No effect Works
cmd.exe Works No effect

What we’re experiencing are subshells, and different shells have different policies on what runs in subshells.

Environment variables, as well as the current directory, is only inherited parent-to-child. Changes to a child’s environment are not reflect in the parent. Any time a shell forks, changes done in the forked process are confined to that process and its children.

In Unix, all normal shells will fork to execute other shell scripts, so setting PATH or cd’ing in a script will never have an effect after the command is done (instead, use "source file" aka ". file" to read and execute the commands without forking).

However, shells can differ in when subshells are invoked. In Bash, all elements in a pipeline will run in a subshell. In Ksh and Zsh, all except the last will run in a subshell. POSIX leaves it undefined.

This means that echo "2 + 3" | bc | read sum will work in Ksh and Zsh, but fail to set the variable sum in Bash.

To work around this in Bash, you can usually use redirection and process substition instead:

read sum < <(echo "2 + 3" | bc)

So, where do we find subshells? Here are a list of commands that in some way fails to set foo=bar for subsequent commands (note that all the examples set it in some subshell, and can use it until the subshell ends):

# Executing other programs or scripts
./setmyfoo
foo=bar ./something

# Anywhere in a pipeline in Bash
true | foo=bar | true

# In any command that executes new shells
awk '{ system("foo=bar") }'h
find . -exec bash -c 'foo=bar' \;

# In backgrounded commands and coprocs:
foo=bar &
coproc foo=bar

# In command expansion
true "$(foo=bar)"

# In process substitution
true < <(foo=bar)

# In commands explicitly subshelled with ()
( foo=bar )

and probably some more that I'm forgetting.

Trying to set a variable, option or working dir in any of these contexts will result in the changes not being visible for following commands.

Knowing this, we can use it to our advantage:

# cd to each dir and run make
for dir in */; do ( cd "$dir" && make ); done

# Compare to the more fragile
for dir in */; do cd "$dir"; make; cd ..; done

# mess with important variables
fields=(a b c); ( IFS=':'; echo ${fields[*]})

# Compare to the cumbersome
fields=(a b c); oldIFS=$IFS; IFS=':'; echo ${fields[*]}; IFS=$oldIFS; 

# Limit scope of options
( set -e; foo; bar; baz; ) 

Basic Linux-related things, Linux , ,

Technically correct: Inversed regex

April 2nd, 2012

How do I write a regex that matches lines that do not contain hi?

That’s a frequently asked question if I ever saw one.

Of course, the proper answer is: you don’t. You write a regex that does match hi and then invert the matching logic, ostensibly with grep -v. But where’s the fun in that?

One interesting theorem that pops up in any book or class on formal grammars is that regular languages are closed under complement: the inverse of a regular expression is also a regular expression. This means that writing inverted regular expressions is theoretically possible, though it turns out to be quite tricky

Just try writing a regex that matches strings that does not contain “hi”, and test it against “hi”, “hhi” and “ih”, “iih” and such variations. Some solutions are coming up.

A way to cheat is using PCRE negative lookahead: ^(?!.*foo) matches all strings not containing the substring “foo”. However, lookahead assertions require a stack, and thus can’t be modelled as a finite state machine. In other words, they don’t fit the mathematical definition of a regular expression, and therefore disqualify.

There are simple, well-known algorithms for turning regular expressions into non-deterministic finite automata, and from there to deterministic FA. Less commonly used and known are algorithms for inverting a DFA and for generating familiar textual regex from it.

You can find these described in various lecture notes and slides, so I won’t recite them.

What I had a harder time finding was software that actually did this. So here is a Haskell program. It’s highly suboptimal but it does the job. When executed, it will ask for a regex and will then output a grep command that matches everything the regex does not (without -v, obviously).

The expressions it produces are quite horrific; it’s computer generated code, after all.

A regular expression for matching strings that do not match .*hi.* could be grep -E '^([^h]|h+$|h+[^hi])*$'.

This app, however, suggests grep -E '^([^h]([^h]|)*||([^h][^h]*h|h)|([^h][^h]*(h(hh*[^hi]|[^hi]))|(h(hh*[^hi]|[^hi])))((hh*[^hi]|[^h])|)*|([^h][^h]*(h([^hi][^h]*h|h))|(h([^hi][^h]*h|h)))(([^hi][^h]*h|h)|)*)$'

It still works exactly as stated though!

The app just supports a small subset of regex, just enough to convince someone that it works, and as a party trick lets you answer the original question exactly as stated.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Advanced Linux-related things, Linux, Programming , ,

Implementation of SHA512-crypt vs MD5-crypt

August 16th, 2011

If you have a new installation, you’re probably using SHA512-based passwords instead of the older MD5-based passwords described in detail in the previous post, which I’ll assume you’ve read. sha512-crypt is very similar to md5-crypt, but with some interesting differences.

Since the implementation of sha512 is really less interesting than the comparison with md5-crypt, I’ll describe it by striking out the relevant parts of the md5-crypt description and writing in what sha512-crypt does instead.

Like md5-crypt, it can be divided into three phases. Initialization, loop, and finalization.

  1. Generate a simple md5 sha512 hash based on the salt and password
  2. Loop 1000 5000 times, calculating a new sha512 hash based on the previous hash concatenated with alternatingly the hash of the password and the salt. Additionally, sha512-crypt allows you to specify a custom number of rounds, from 1000 to 999999999
  3. Use a special base64 encoding on the final hash to create the password hash string

 

The main differences are the higher number of rounds, which can be user selected for better (or worse) security, the use of the hashed password and salt in each round, rather than the unhashed ones, and a few tweaks of the initialization step.

 

Here’s the real sha512-crypt initialization.

  1. Let “password” be the user’s ascii password, “salt” the ascii salt (truncated to 8 16 chars) , and “magic” the string “$1$”
  2. Start by computing the Alternate sum, sha512(password + salt + password)
  3. Compute the Intermediate0 sum by hashing the concatenation of the following strings:
    1. Password
    2. Magic
    3. Salt
    4. length(password) bytes of the Alternate sum, repeated as necessary
    5. For each bit in length(password), from low to high and stopping after the most significant set bit
      • If the bit is set, append a NUL byte the Alternate sum
      • If it’s unset, append the first byte of the password
  4. New: Let S_factor be 16 + the first byte of Intermediate0
  5. New: Compute the S bytes, length(salt) bytes of sha512(salt, concatenated S_factor times).
  6. New: Compute the P bytes, length(password) bytes of sha512(password), repeated as necessary

 

Step 3.5 — which was very strange in md5-crypt — now makes a little more sense. We also calculated the S bytes and P bytes, which from here on will be used just like salt and password was in md5-crypt.

From this point on, the calculations will only involve the password P bytes, salt S bytes, and the Intermediate0 sum. Now we loop 5000 times (by default), to stretch the algorithm.

  • For i = 0 to 4999 (inclusive), compute Intermediatei+1 by concatenating and hashing the following:
    1. If i is even, Intermediatei
    2. If i is odd, password P bytes
    3. If i is not divisible by 3, salt S bytes
    4. If i is not divisible by 7, password P bytes
    5. If i is even, password P bytes
    6. If i is odd, Intermediatei

    At this point you don’t need Intermediatei anymore.

You will now have ended up with Intermediate5000. Let’s call this the Final sum. Since sha512 is 512bit, this is 64 bytes long.

The bytes will be rearranged, and then encoded as 86 ascii characters using the same base64 encoding as md5-crypt.

  1. Output the magic, “$6$”
  2. New: If using a custom number of rounds, output “rounds=12345$”
  3. Output the salt
  4. Output a “$” to separate the salt from the encrypted section
  5. Pick out the 64 bytes in this order: 63 62 20 41 40 61 19 18 39 60 59 17 38 37 58 16 15 36 57 56 14 35 34 55 13 12 33 54 53 11 32 31 52 10 9 30 51 50 8 29 28 49 7 6 27 48 47 5 26 25 46 4 3 24 45 44 2 23 22 43 1 0 21 42
    • For each group of 6 bits (there’s 86 groups), starting with the least significant
      • Output the corresponding base64 character with this index

 

And yes, I do have a shell script for this as well: sha512crypt. This one takes about a minute to generate a hash, due to the higher number of rounds. However, it doesn’t support custom rounds.

I hope these two posts have provided an interesting look at two exceedingly common, but often overlooked, algorithms!

Advanced Linux-related things, Linux, Security , , ,

Password hashing with MD5-crypt in relation to MD5

August 9th, 2011

If you haven’t reinstalled recently, chances are you’re using MD5-based passwords. However, the password hashes you find in /etc/shadow look nothing like what md5sum returns.

Here’s an example:

/etc/shadow:
$1$J7iYSKio$aEY4anysz.gtXxg7XlL6v1

md5sum:
7c6483ddcd99eb112c060ecbe0543e86 

What’s the difference in generating these hashes? Why are they different at all?

Just running md5sum on a password and storing that is just marginally more secure than storing the plaintext password.

Thanks to GPGPUs, a modern gaming rig can easily try 5 billion such passwords per second, or go over the entire 8-character alphanumeric space in a day. With rainbow tables, a beautiful time–space tradeoff, you can do pretty much the same in 15 minutes.

MD5-crypt employs salting to make precomputational attacks exponentially more difficult. Additionally, it uses stretching to make brute force attacks harder (but just linearly so).

As an aside, these techniques were used in the original crypt from 1979, so there’s really no excuse to do naive password hashing anymore. However, at that time the salt was 12 bits and the number of rounds 25 — quite adorable in comparison with today’s absolute minimum of 64 bits and 1000 rounds.

The original crypt was DES based, but used a modified algorithm to prevent people from using existing DES cracking hardware. MD5-crypt doesn’t do any such tricks, and can be implemented in terms of any MD5 library, or even the md5sum util.

As regular reads might suspect, I’ve written a shell script to demonstrate this: md5crypt. There are a lot of workarounds for Bash’s inability to handle NUL bytes in strings. It takes 10 seconds to generate a hash, and is generally awful..ly funny!

Let’s first disect a crypt hash. man 3 crypt has some details.

If salt is a character string starting with the characters
"$id$" followed by a string terminated by "$":

       $id$salt$encrypted

then instead of using the DES machine, id  identifies  the
encryption  method  used  and this then determines how the
rest of the password string is interpreted.  The following
values of id are supported:

       ID  | Method
       -------------------------------------------------
       1   | MD5
       2a  | Blowfish (on some Linux distributions)
       5   | SHA-256 (since glibc 2.7)
       6   | SHA-512 (since glibc 2.7)

Simple and easy. Split by $, and then your fields are Algorithm, Salt and Hash.

md5-crypt is a function that takes a plaintext password and a salt, and generate such a hash.

To set a password, you’d generate a random salt, input the user’s password, and write the hash to /etc/shadow. To check a password, you’d read the hash from /etc/shadow, extract the salt, run the algorithm on this salt and the candidate password, and then see if the resulting hash matches what you have.

md5-crypt can be divided into three phases. Initialization, loop, and finalization. Here’s a very high level description of what we’ll go through in detail:

  1. Generate a simple md5 hash based on the salt and password
  2. Loop 1000 times, calculating a new md5 hash based on the previous hash concatenated with alternatingly the password and the salt.
  3. Use a special base64 encoding on the final hash to create the password hash string

 

Put like this, it relatively elegant. However, there are a lot of details that turn this from elegant to eyerolling.

Here’s the real initialization.

  1. Let “password” be the user’s ascii password, “salt” the ascii salt (truncated to 8 chars), and “magic” the string “$1$”
  2. Start by computing the Alternate sum, md5(password + salt + password)
  3. Compute the Intermediate0 sum by hashing the concatenation of the following strings:
    1. Password
    2. Magic
    3. Salt
    4. length(password) bytes of the Alternate sum, repeated as necessary
    5. For each bit in length(password), from low to high and stopping after the most significant set bit
      • If the bit is set, append a NUL byte
      • If it’s unset, append the first byte of the password

 

I know what you’re thinking, and yes, it’s very arbitrary. The latter part was most likely a bug in the original implementation, carried along as UNIX issues often are. Remember to stay tuned next week, when we’ll compare this to SHA512-crypt as used on new installations!

From this point on, the calculations will only involve the password, salt, and Intermediate0 sum. Now we loop 1000 times, to stretch the algorithm.

  • For i = 0 to 999 (inclusive), compute Intermediatei+1 by concatenating and hashing the following:
    1. If i is even, Intermediatei
    2. If i is odd, password
    3. If i is not divisible by 3, salt
    4. If i is not divisible by 7, password
    5. If i is even, password
    6. If i is odd, Intermediatei

    At this point you don’t need Intermediatei anymore.

You will now have ended up with Intermediate1000. Let’s call this the Final sum. Since MD5 is 128bit, this is 16 bytes long.

The bytes will be rearranged, and then encoded as 22 ascii characters with a special base64-type encoding. This is not the same as regular base64:

Normal base64 set:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/

Crypt base64 set:
./0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Additionally, there is no padding. The leftover byte will be encoded into 2 base64 ascii characters.

  1. Output the magic
  2. Output the salt
  3. Output a “$” to separate the salt from the encrypted section
  4. Pick out the 16 bytes in this order: 11 4 10 5 3 9 15 2 8 14 1 7 13 0 6 12.
    • For each group of 6 bits (there are 22 groups), starting with the least significant
      • Output the corresponding base64 character with this index

Congratulations, you now have a compatible md5-crypt hash!

As you can see, it’s quite far removed from a naive md5(password) attempt.

Fortunately, one will only ever need this algorithm for compatibility. New applications can use the standard PBKDF2 algorithm, implemented by most cryptography libraries, which does the same thing only in a standardized and parameterized way.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, the next post next week will be more of the same, but with SHA512-crypt!

Advanced Linux-related things, Linux, Security , ,

Why Bash is like that: Signal propagation

August 3rd, 2011

Bash can seem pretty random and weird at times, but most of what people see as quirks have very logical (if not very good) explanations behind them. This series of posts looks at some of them.

How do I simulate pressing Ctrl-C when running this:
while true; do echo sleeping; sleep 30; done

Are you thinking “SIGINT, duh!”? Hold your horses!

I tried kill -INT pid, but it doesn't work the same:

Ctrl-C    kills the sleep and the loop
SIGINTing the shell does nothing
SIGINTing sleep makes the loop continue with the next iteration

HOWEVER, if I run the script in the background and kill -INT %1
instead of kill -INT pid, THEN it works :O

Why does Ctrl-C terminate the loop, while SIGINT doesn’t?

Additionally, if I run the same loop with ping or top instead of sleep,
Ctrl-C doesn't terminate the loop either!

Yeah. Well… Yeah…

This behaviour is due to an often overlooked feature in UNIX: process groups. These are important for getting terminals and shells to work the way they do.

A process group is exactly what it sounds like: a group of processes. They have a leader, which is the process that created it using setsid(2). The leader’s pid is also the process group id. Child processes are in the same group as their parent by default.

Terminals keep track of the foreground process group (set by the shell using tcsetpgrp(3)). When receiving a Ctrl-C, they send the SIGINT to the entire foreground group. This means that all members of the group will receive SIGINT, not just the immediate process.

kill -INT %1 sends the signal to the job’s process group, not the backgrounded pid! This explains why it works like Ctrl-C.

You can do the same thing with kill -INT -pgrpid. Since the process group id is the same as the process group leader, you can kill the group by killing the pid with a minus in front.

But why do you have to kill both?

When the shell is interrupted, it will wait for the running command to exit. If this child’s status indicates it exited abnormally due to that signal, the shell cleans up, removes its signal handler, and kills itself again to trigger the OS default action (abnormal exit). Alternatively, it runs the script’s signal handler as set with trap, and continues.

If the shell is interrupted and the child’s status says it exited normally, then Bash assumes the child handled the signal and did something useful, so it continues executing. Ping and top both trap SIGINT and exit normally, which is why Ctrl-C doesn’t kill the loop when calling them.

This also explains why interrupting just the shell does nothing: the child exits normally, so the shell thinks the child handled the signal, though in reality it was never received.

Finally, if the shell isn’t interrupted and a child exits, Bash just carries on regardless of whether the signal died abnormally or not. This is why interrupting the sleep just continues with the loop.

In case one would like to handle such cases, Bash sets the exit code to 128+signal when the process exits abnormally, so interrupting sleep with SIGINT would give the exit code 130 (kill -l lists the signal values).

Bonus problem:

I have this C app, testpg:
int main() {
    setsid();
    return sleep(10);
}

I run bash -c './testpg' and press Ctrl-C. The app is killed.
Shouldn't testpg be excluded from SIGINT, since it used setsid?

A quick strace unravels this mystery: with a single command to execute, bash execve’s it directly — a little optimization trick. Since the pid is the same and already had its own process group, creating a new one doesn’t have any effect.

Using a compound command prevents this: bash -c 'true; ./testpg' can’t be killed with Ctrl-C.

Advanced Linux-related things, Linux , , , ,