[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:42:25 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen <sortie@...si.org>
Subject: Re: Race condition between UDP bind(2) and connect(2)
delivers wrong datagrams
On 11/06/2017 04:31 PM, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen wrote:
> Hi oss-security,
>
> When you connect(2) a UDP socket to an address, any subsequent recv(2) must
> only receieve datagrams from that address. However, if the UDP socket is
> first given a local address with bind(2), there is a race condition before
> the connect(2) where datagrams received from any address is added to the
> socket's receieve queue. Unfortunately, all of Darwin, DragonFly, FreeBSD,
> GNU/Hurd, Haiku, Linux, Minix, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and OpenIndiana don't purge
> the receieve queue of datagrams with the wrong source on connect(2).
> Instead, they deliver datagrams already in the recieve queue even if they
> have the wrong source. I've failed to find any operating system that handles
> this case correctly.
The alternative is that these systems are handling the situation correctly.
> Even though it can be difficult to exploit this bug, it is a validation bug
> in the kernels. POSIX 2008 (2016 edition) says[1]:
>
> "For SOCK_DGRAM sockets, the peer address identifies where all datagrams
> are sent on subsequent send() functions, and limits the remote sender
> for subsequent recv() functions."
Whatever the exact wording used is, the intent of POSIX is to describe
the BSD sockets API behavior. If the API does something else, that's a
POSIX bug.
> Software can work around this bug by using recvfrom(2) or recvmsg(2) and
> verifying the sender's address.
It's often possible to simply drain all pending datagrams after the
connect call because the application knows that all packets received at
this points must be garbage and not intended for it to process.
> I've not been able to think of / find any other software that bind(2) a UDP
> socket to an address and then use connect(2) to fix a particular peer, but
> I don't have time to do a thorough search. Please let me know if you can
> think of any.
OpenJDK had a similar issue because it supported socket disconnect.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
