[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D8D24F8C-3644-4DB1-960A-C418453F7F2C@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 21:57:30 +0000
From: "Seaman, Chad" <cseaman@...mai.com>
To: "oss-security@...ts.openwall.com" <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>,
"Kurt
Seifried" <kseifried@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: memcached UDP amplification attacks
Tomas,
You’re not wrong, that was a typo in the blog.
Regards,
Chad
On 3/7/18, 5:10 AM, "Tomas Hoger" <thoger@...hat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:42:30 -0700 Kurt Seifried wrote:
> I have assigned CVE-2018-1000115 to this issue:
>
> Memcached version 1.5.5 contains an Insufficient Control of Network
> Message Volume (Network Amplification, CWE-406) vulnerability in the
> UDP support of the memcached server that can result in denial of
> service via network flood (traffic amplification of 1:50,000 has been
> reported by reliable sources). This attack appear to be exploitable
> via network connectivity to port 11211 UDP. This vulnerability
> appears to have been fixed in 1.5.6 due to the disabling of the UDP
> protocol by default.
Minor nitpick, the description mentions 1:50,000 ratio, apparently
based on the information in the following reference:
> https://blogs.akamai.com/2018/03/memcached-fueled-13-tbps-attacks.html
where it's mentioned as:
"""
Worse, memcached can have an amplification factor of over 50,000,
meaning a 203 byte request results in a 100 megabyte response.
"""
However, 200 * 50k = 10m, not 100m. Wonder if I'm doing my math wrong.
--
Tomas Hoger / Red Hat Product Security
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.
