[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130403145514.GA24627@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:55:14 +0200
From: Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer@...e.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow
glibc resolver surprisingly seems to accept indeed larger
UDP packets than DNS servers would send without EDNS0.
But depending on setup its probably hard to get such large
packets through your local recursive DNS, not to speak
about the firewall. Maybe its possible to signal truncation
and force a TCP connect?
Sebastian
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 04:27:58PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 01:10 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>
>> I am not sure you can usually push this amount of addresses via DNS for all
>> setups.
>
> Both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are combined in that array, right? Then the
> protocol limit seems to be around 4000 + 2300 addresses (NAME (2 bytes with
> compression) + RCLASS (2) + RTYPE(2) + TTL (4) + RDATALEN(2) + RDATA(4 or
> 16) per record, total available space is 64K), which could be used to blow
> 128K stacks sometimes used by JVMs.
>
> --
> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
~ perl self.pl
~ $_='print"\$_=\47$_\47;eval"';eval
~ krahmer@...e.de - SuSE Security Team
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.
