Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <>
Subject: Re: CVE Request: BGP protocol vulnerability

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Kurt Seifried wrote:

>> The BGP protocol and its various extensions require that BGP peering
>> sessions are terminated when a peer receives a BGP update message
>> which it considers semantically incorrect, leading to a persistent
>> denial-of-service condition if the update is received again after the
>> terminated session is reestablished.
>> (This is not something new at all---we just need to get up, treat it
>> as a vulnerability, and fix it.)
> This sounds like CVE-2010-3035

The way Cisco has written up this CVE, they are clearly focusing on the 
generation of corrupted attributes, not a protocol problem.  So, I'd want 
a separate CVE for the general BGP design issue.

> or are you talking about another BGP issue? (but in the same "family"
> as CVE-2009-2055 and  CVE-2010-3035).

I can't quite tell the difference between CVE-2009-2055 and what Florian 
is requesting a CVE for.  In CVE-2009-2055, Cisco seems to be implying 
that it's a problem in XR, not the design of the whole protocol - but it's 
not immediately clear if they even "fixed" it.  The issue at hand is 
whether we need a new CVE or a rewrite for the old CVE-2009-2055.

- Steve

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.