oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow
From: Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer () suse de>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:55:14 +0200
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 () suse de - SuSE Security Team
Current thread:
- CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Marcus Meissner (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Florian Weimer (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Sebastian Krahmer (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Florian Weimer (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Sebastian Krahmer (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Kurt Seifried (Apr 03)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Marcus Meissner (Apr 05)
- Re: CVE Request: glibc getaddrinfo() stack overflow Florian Weimer (Apr 03)