oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression
From: Stefan Bühler <stbuehler () lighttpd net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 19:12:26 +0200
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:15:06 +0000 Sven Kieske <S.Kieske () mittwald de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'd agree with this. And I don't get the argument from poul-henning kamp, what I understand is: "hey, we trust our backend server" well, but your backend server can make you crash, so you probably shouldn't trust it in the first place? you _never_ can trust input, so you have to validate it, either way, at least enough to not crash or perform malicious actions. Am 03.07.2014 09:48, schrieb Kurt Seifried:So as I understand this: Varnish front end for web servers, the web servers can trigger varnish to restart. Are the back end servers supposed to be able to cause varnish to restart? I'm guessing not. Scenario: hosting env, or a website with a vuln, whatever, you can now cause the varnish front ends to restart constantly, effectively causing a permanent denial of service. That sounds CVE worthy. Or am I missing something?
you should never trust *untrusted* input. your root shell usually trusts the input it gets... so the valgrind developers decided that they consider the backend webservers trusted, at least regarding the capability to cause a DoS. for the record - so does lighttpd (a backend can trigger OOM as lighty reads (nearly) as fast as possible from a backend, as backends often only handle one request at a time); we usually tell people to use X-sendfile instead of sending ISOs through php. just because you disagree with such decisions doesn't make it CVE worthy (missing or wrong documentation could). in case you actually want to assign a CVE here, maybe we can get one for the bad openssl default cipherstring too? because for that it is really obvious that it is f*** wrong, but i think that none was assigned because upstream didn't agree with it. regards, Stefan
Current thread:
- Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Marek Kroemeke (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Solar Designer (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Poul-Henning Kamp (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Marek Kroemeke (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Poul-Henning Kamp (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Kurt Seifried (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Sven Kieske (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Stefan Bühler (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Kurt Seifried (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Marek Kroemeke (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Stefan Bühler (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Stefan Bühler (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Kurt Seifried (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Seth Arnold (Jul 03)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Poul-Henning Kamp (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Sven Kieske (Jul 04)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Solar Designer (Jul 02)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Poul-Henning Kamp (Jul 05)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression cve-assign (Jul 08)
- Re: Varnish - no CVE == bug regression Poul-Henning Kamp (Jul 08)