oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE Request -- dnsmasq: Incomplete fix for the CVE-2012-3411 issue
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:04:08 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/18/2013 06:31 AM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
Hello Kurt, Steve, vendors, the CVE-2012-3411 identifier has been originally assigned to the following issue: When dnsmasq is used in conjunctions with certain configurations of libvirtd, network packets from prohibited networks (e.g. packets that should not be passed in) may be sent to the dnsmasq application and processed. This can result in DNS amplification attacks for example. [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/07/12/5 Later it was found: [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894486 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894486#c3 the upstream patch for CVE-2012-3411 it not to be working properly, as it still allowed (from [3]): * replies to remote TCP-protocol based DNS queries (UDP protocol ones were corrected, but TCP ones not) from prohibited networks, when the --bind-dynamic option was used, * when --except-interface lo option was used dnsmasq didn't answer local or remote UDP DNS queries, but still allowed TCP protocol based DNS queries, * when --except-interface lo option was not used local / remote TCP DNS queries were also still answered by dnsmasq. Could you allocate a new CVE identifier for this? (as an incomplete fix for CVE-2012-3411 issue) Thank you && Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Response Team
Please use CVE-2013-0198 for this issue. - -- Kurt Seifried Red Hat Security Response Team (SRT) PGP: 0x5E267993 A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ+aq3AAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTRxUP/2Qrpz52gOOcAk5Pdc50kue4 nP8i7VOVsV+0rjmJ3U8xbbnERQkzvoNtuTel/wsjg4qT9EY3XUQ4N8qJyYPpJD3U Gsy4BrBeVT9ZpUXiRtKfYxP0E9G6OPGu5tMTK1baYuFRS9czObTBk4JamPnapv9Z t+48GmilchuYlyn0yxRp77aG7nrSt/YCgX7MTdEyAOWP8q+wYPc2/jBkNERcRp1U VMqnTgOWH9IjUXhLWKwmCoJKescbVjRH8snGHeShDx1l+fzwKVEcFt2s5sEX/fll aLoRUOZ9qxAP3wYo0vkeoWEJZr/TxqqAraHi95gkCxtcPCIJ1w+qh1Zg9cOZ8Rnl KfmGbNaiqo3zQo/3lBqCZmTn/DovppQv992b0HMGsGyaRpw1Btylr5txGqWHldcG y31L8Ij5SuKmh4vnqTpZb1ax18OgxUCD91Id7RNk5ofTv676zr3xaSqbk0+nqYqe KRKrfoD7ShlAWqO1J0QYVCY63hzS+YdvwrT9C1QMa7yvgpsaIeVgPnhrfQEaGazd QXJFd76oD6V6+/AlTMFCdY6VgsFy8rLhDXj0RDC/3u+ZZnxl9RXZ9x/gwXYv/EnO TvSNJluKAjWcebuJbZzPn25IWnGVXyjppOoy9ZjOEFoz78N2y2qE8oJeALL6RlXe fnjNc4y3IkmdWllKnzPM =H+Cc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- CVE Request -- dnsmasq: Incomplete fix for the CVE-2012-3411 issue Jan Lieskovsky (Jan 18)
- Re: CVE Request -- dnsmasq: Incomplete fix for the CVE-2012-3411 issue Jan Lieskovsky (Jan 18)
- Re: CVE Request -- dnsmasq: Incomplete fix for the CVE-2012-3411 issue Kurt Seifried (Jan 18)