Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:54:02 +1100 From: Michael Samuel <mik@...net.net> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CVE Request New-djbdns: dnscache: potential cache poisoning On 17 February 2014 19:33, P J P <ppandit@...hat.com> wrote: > Hello, > > +-- On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, P J P wrote --+ > | +-- On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Michael Samuel wrote --+ > | | > -> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/02/11/7 > | | The same issue, different result. > | > | Yes, true. Thank you for confirming. > > So, does this qualify for a CVE? I think I've come around to a yes for this one. Pushing attacker-chosen entries out of the cache after only 100 packets is clearly not what the admin wants. It makes a secondary attack (DNS over UDP blind cache poisoning) much more viable than it was. I can think of some DoS scenarios where this vector would assist another attack. Regards, Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ