Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 131337
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Security <security@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Raphael Marichez <falco@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Flags: Requestee:
 
 
  ()

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 131337 depends on: 158217 181556 Show dependency tree
Bug 131337 blocks:

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2006-04-26 07:02 0000
Description:
A vulnerability been reported in ISC BIND, which can be exploited by malicious
people to cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

The vulnerability is caused due to an error within the handling of the TSIG in
the second or subsequent messages in a zone transfer. This can be exploited to
crash "named" via a malformed TSIG in the messages.

Successful exploitation requires that the first zone transfer message have a
valid TSIG.

Solution:
The vulnerability will reportedly be fixed in a future release.

Do not accept zone-transfers from non-trusted nameservers.

Provided and/or discovered by:
Reported by vendor based on DNS Test Tool created by Oulu University Secure
Programming Group.

Original Advisory:
NISCC:
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/re-20060425-00312.pdf?lang=en

------- Comment #1 From Raphael Marichez 2006-04-26 07:03:30 0000 -------
i mark it as a B3 and not A3, since the attacker must be authorized for zone
transfer, and have valid TSIG.

------- Comment #2 From Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) 2006-08-12 03:20:38 0000 -------
This is CVE-2006-2073.

It may be fixed in an upcoming release, if this corresponds :
* Handle unexpected TSIGs on unsigned AXFR/IXFR responses more gracefully. [RT
#15941]

------- Comment #3 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2006-11-24 12:16:14 0000 -------
Still nothing upstream apparently (according to Secunia).

------- Comment #4 From Konstantin Arkhipov 2006-12-17 09:54:35 0000 -------
fyi: 9.2.7/9.3.3 added to portage.

------- Comment #5 From Christian Faulhammer 2006-12-18 00:35:37 0000 -------
x86 stable for both versions

------- Comment #6 From Raphael Marichez 2007-01-12 22:28:26 0000 -------
IMHO this is not fixed upstream yet.

------- Comment #7 From Raphael Marichez 2007-01-13 21:10:20 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> IMHO this is not fixed upstream yet.
> 

and according to secunia too

------- Comment #8 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-04-11 19:07:06 0000 -------
seems that version 9.4 fixes it:

http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/bind/

------- Comment #9 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-04-11 19:42:50 0000 -------
Pierre-Yves do you have a more exact reference?

------- Comment #10 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-04-11 20:12:26 0000 -------
hmm sorry the link doesn't work (perl url...crap).
But if you click on "BIND 9.4.0" under current release, and then scroll down to
the release notes, you see:

2066.   [security]      Handle SIG queries gracefully. [RT #16300]

So I think 9.4.0 is ok

------- Comment #11 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-04-11 20:30:56 0000 -------
sorry I misread, in fact it's not entry 2066 but 2013:

2013.   [bug]           Handle unexpected TSIGs on unsigned AXFR/IXFR
                        responses more gracefully. [RT #15941]
Fixed in 9.4.0a5.

------- Comment #12 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-04-11 20:31:43 0000 -------
Thx that is all I need.

Bind what are your plans on stabling 9.4?

------- Comment #13 From Raphael Marichez 2007-05-08 19:29:43 0000 -------
Thanks Pierre-Yves;

voxus / bind team, any decision here?

------- Comment #14 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-05-16 18:03:32 0000 -------
any news here? I see that ~9.4.1 is in the tree, is it ok for asking
stabilisation?

------- Comment #15 From Martin Jackson (RETIRED) 2007-05-16 23:48:36 0000 -------
I run BIND 9.4.1 on x86.  As the junior member of the bind herd, I support
stabilization. :)

------- Comment #16 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-06-03 15:34:10 0000 -------
Bind what are your plans on stabling 9.4?

------- Comment #17 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-06-10 08:00:18 0000 -------
Bind what are your plans on stabling 9.4?

------- Comment #18 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-06-16 06:22:20 0000 -------
Bind what are your plans on stabling 9.4?

------- Comment #19 From Christian Parpart 2007-06-17 08:49:54 0000 -------
i'm a (rather *silent* listener-)member of the BIND herd, as I've to do really
*much* of DNS administration at work.

however, I don't feel well in stabelizing an arch I'm not on, so I stabelized
for amd64 for bind and bind-tools as I'm already using them quite a while now.

So it's stable on: alpha amd64 ppc64 sparc x86

and still testing on: ~hppa ~ia64 ~mips ~ppc

looks to me, as if the main archs already stabelized bind so far, jaervosz.

------- Comment #20 From Christian Parpart 2007-06-17 08:52:16 0000 -------
CCing arch, so they do know about.

------- Comment #21 From Tobias Scherbaum 2007-06-17 09:47:21 0000 -------
ppc stable as per #181556

------- Comment #22 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-06-17 10:25:22 0000 -------
Sorry Christian, I didn't check wether it was stabled since I first started
asking and I even upgraded to 9.4 myself, duh!

This one is ready for GLSA decision. I vote NO.

------- Comment #23 From René Nussbaumer 2007-06-17 19:50:51 0000 -------
Stable on hppa.

------- Comment #24 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-06-20 08:12:35 0000 -------
I tend to vote NO.

------- Comment #25 From Joshua Kinard 2007-06-21 05:40:42 0000 -------
mips stable on both bind and bind-tools.

------- Comment #26 From Raúl Porcel 2007-06-21 11:11:00 0000 -------
ia64 stable

------- Comment #27 From Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 2007-07-01 02:06:09 0000 -------
Security please vote.

------- Comment #28 From Matt Drew 2007-07-02 21:03:14 0000 -------
I also vote no, since the remote server has to already be authorized for zone
transfer.

------- Comment #29 From Pierre-Yves Rofes 2007-07-14 21:28:27 0000 -------
2 NO votes, closing without glsa. feel free to reopen if you disagree. 

Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug