Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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

Your e-mail address:

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ