[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1303131508090.26480@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:10:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...re.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, kseifried@...hat.com
cc: Russ Allbery <rra@...nford.edu>
Subject: Re: Reverse lookup issue in Net::Server
Trust of the hostname returned by an IP's reverse DNS is better covered by
CWE-350: Improperly Trusted Reverse DNS, which should probably be a child
of the aforementioned CWE-807, but is not. (I'll get that fixed.)
- Steve
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/04/2013 12:36 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Remi Gacogne <rgacogne-bugs@...edump.fr> writes:
>>
>>> I think there is a security issue in the way the access control
>>> feature of Net::Server
>>> (http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Net%3A%3AServer) works.
>>> Net::Server is used by various projects including Munin, Postgrey
>>> and SQLgrey.
>>
>>> The issue lies in the fact that the allow / deny access control
>>> does not perform a valid DNS check when given a hostname
>>> parameter and the 'reverse_lookups' option is enabled. The
>>> current code only checks that the incoming connection source IP
>>> address has a reverse DNS matching the given hostname, but does
>>> not check that the hostname resolves back to this source IP
>>> address (see how the $prop->{'peerhost'} property is set in
>>> get_client_info(), lib/Net/Server.pm:553, then used in
>>> allow_deny(), lib/Net/Server.pm:597). As it is trivial for an
>>> attacker to be able to set his own source IP's reverse DNS, the
>>> current check is not safe (this probably matches CWE-807:
>>> Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision).
>>
>> This is a very weak security measure, but yes, the need to check
>> the reverse DNS results with a forward DNS query to make the
>> security check at all useful has been well-known going all the way
>> back to the days when TCP wrappers was the UNIX firewalling system
>> of choice. I remember discussion of this in security contexts in
>> 1994, and I'm sure it was an old discussion even then.
>
> Yup. Please use CVE-2013-1841 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 v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRPpYkAAoJEBYNRVNeJnmTo74P/j9Yn/ESKT4ALfNJoAISZgIT
> YSCewtRaMqI+LDr11Rg6kLC9NHO8BKsyo3DvlbEgFITpwkmCCOJKZOvR6PbFm9Ot
> reLseaegLL6y7qDXgAi97hGjWgq2i+vIi+agyfSy1lhzpnR9bk6aa/rdbxxtERPH
> N1CbKFpBvZ6RLHDtBtgEGqMznoswG8JIk5l/q15qLvnXgG1VA3H8PL/ZPsHUQ1iR
> 95tOKXWeHw0ZysK2mwwQHbv6xLxo1owpvILqbOMN7x5Jx/WgusahfjDhQ9eyUbpy
> Ffxceha4M5LI8FgavALMFYMvAcymFkkjjuG08z/VhYa2/7FMqqF0gXIq4zuVKzAe
> VJqAt0cd5B6Nx9Kff5f/Yx3WkoZaj+9ErTkIv1O3Rd+X6ubW5j8PdVpKn0hOGEL2
> XKnNdOkKT6ZtWeRqfck1PZCPw4LUu/gBRNVl4vgr2QVPbRIRDjT5+PksIjd6U+dA
> lHgz54FXX+X0Yqy4djhZXD1fC9LRahThkHws1U7GjAMcFzVdoGLjfoAFT7temdzF
> iKpMCcCDoB9H1Pl03cJWk7pPKbZHSgRqYPlnqf6PNmTmJlYCGcqZorihU+S9xw2d
> ziIO+75QPuxvVVb8Hbtv8RHuJbndqSaFtjncbn0MQ1bVU+/JdQQchy4GPlvrrtvi
> kDHwPyl55Mrvy0lQAh7X
> =5u6Y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
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.
