Bug 462751 (CVE-2008-4100)
Summary: | CVE-2008-4100 adns: DNS spoofing flaw | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | Josh Bressers <bressers> |
Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | atkac |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Security |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2008-4100 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-12-23 23:45:59 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 462752, 462753, 462754 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Josh Bressers
2008-09-18 18:40:17 UTC
The upstream INSTALL document states: SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE - AN IMPORTANT NOTE adns is not a `full-service resolver': it does no caching of responses at all, and has no defence against bad nameservers or fake packets which appear to come from your real nameservers. It relies on the full-service resolvers listed in resolv.conf to handle these tasks. For secure and reasonable operation you MUST run a full-service nameserver on the same system as your adns applications, or on the same local, fully trusted network. You MUST only list such nameservers in the adns configuration (eg resolv.conf). You MUST use a firewall or other means to block packets which appear to come from these nameservers, but which were actually sent by other, untrusted, entities. Furthermore, adns is not DNSSEC-aware in this version; it doesn't understand even how to ask a DNSSEC-aware nameserver to perform the DNSSEC cryptographic signature checking. Therefore this is intended behaviour and not a security issue in and of itself. |