Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit?
From: nix () myproxylists com
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:49:20 +0200
In message <c2122821abc4d89254092500a8814215.squirrel () gameframe net>, nix@mypro xylists.com writes:Hello list. I've source compile of BIND 9.8.1 on the server. I've been investigating weird iptables messages as follows: Oct 29 14:53:13 NIX kernel: IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=MY_SERVER_IP DST=62.80.128.29 LEN=114 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=31795 PROTO=UDP SPT=53 DPT=5060 LEN=94 I received a message from my ISP abuse that my server is scanning SIP port 5060 and I set the firewall rule to deny/log all UDP connections out of the box to port 5060 to get timestamps for further investigation. This happened before I set the firewall rule.You are just blocking legitimate reply traffic. Your ISP is probably misclassifying traffic it sees destined to port 5060. Nameservers randomly pick source ports to make it harder for off path attackers to spoof reply packets and, unless something is already using port 5060, port 5060 is fair game. You can stop your own nameservers using 5060 as a query source port with avoid-v4-udp-ports but it doesn't do much to help with queries to you. avoid-v4-udp-ports { 5060; }; avoid-v6-udp-ports { 5060; }; You should also adjust your firewall to let packets sourced from port 53 on your nameservers to any port go through. That way you won't get false positives. Mark/var/log/named.log 05-Oct-2011 06:05:58.093 client: warning: client 81.25.53.2#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 07-Oct-2011 13:14:38.739 client: warning: client 221.210.153.6#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 08-Oct-2011 00:43:22.881 client: warning: client 212.59.18.8#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 08-Oct-2011 13:42:58.943 client: warning: client 202.43.160.50#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 12-Oct-2011 10:26:20.586 client: warning: client 213.77.43.115#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 14-Oct-2011 15:42:12.676 client: warning: client 193.210.19.19#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 15-Oct-2011 16:26:16.573 client: warning: client 202.44.204.36#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 16-Oct-2011 20:52:44.570 client: warning: client 200.63.56.5#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 17-Oct-2011 01:48:49.617 client: warning: client 84.22.23.4#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 23-Oct-2011 12:34:26.255 client: warning: client 208.69.35.15#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 25-Oct-2011 01:50:17.382 client: warning: client 84.88.226.10#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 25-Oct-2011 15:23:51.384 client: warning: client 195.222.32.20#5060: error sending response: host unreachable 29-Oct-2011 14:53:13.208 client: warning: client 62.80.128.29#5060: error sending response: host unreachable Timestamps matches exactly to kernel's firewall log. Every time BIND error log has the above entry, the box tries to scan for SIP port 5060. Is it possible to scan ports through BIND or exec code by sending a specially crafted request? PS. I have been tracking this issue for a week and no other timestamps matches exactly to this isssue. I have currently grsec' exec logging on and hoping this issue occurs soon so I can see will it execute extra code under the user 'bind'. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Thanks everyone for clarification. The port scan issue I had with the other host actually happened before I set up name server. At that time I could not determine what is causing it and I left this issue alone due to lot of other work. Then I set a firewall rule to log/deny UDP port 5060. After wards I installed name server on this server and started to see those iptables messages and though that something is connection out of the box to port 5060 that should not. I was not aware that BIND uses random ports and obviously 5060 as well. Hopefully I explained clear enough what causes this confusion. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? nix (Oct 29)
- Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? Fabian Wenk (Oct 29)
- Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? Alan J. Wylie (Oct 29)
- Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? xD 0x41 (Oct 29)
- Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? Mark Andrews (Oct 31)
- Re: bind-9.8.1 remote code exec exploit? nix (Oct 30)