[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1111141737030.17128@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:42:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...-smtp.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request -- Squid v3.1.16 -- Invalid free by
processing CNAME DNS record pointing to another CNAME record pointing to an
empty A-record
In general, an attacker-triggered crash in any type of product that acts
as an "intermediary" between two parties - such as a proxy, firewall, mail
server, anti-virus, etc. - is typically counted as a vulnerability for
CVE, since the crash of the intermediary may cause many active sessions to
be lost, not just the session for the attacker. Add repeated crashes and
you can have a substantive DoS on your hands.
For "passive" intermediaries like IDS and sniffers that just monitor
traffic, a crash/DoS can lead to loss of visibility/awareness (passing
traffic doesn't get captured), which can allow an attacker to hide
activities.
- Steve
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> mån 2011-10-31 klockan 14:20 -0600 skrev Kurt Seifried:
>
>>> Could you allocate a CVE id for this? (cc-ed Henrik and Jiri
>>> for their opinion / comments too, if this should be considered
>>> a security issue or not)
>>
>> I'd say so, in the past we have: CVE-2010-2951, CVE-2010-0639,
>> CVE-2009-3700, etc. Lots of similar ones.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
>
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.
