|Summary:||CVE-2009-0801 squid: remote bypass of access controls|
|Product:||[Other] Security Response||Reporter:||Vincent Danen <vdanen>|
|Component:||vulnerability||Assignee:||Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:|
|Version:||unspecified||CC:||aglotov, bressers, henrik, mbacovsk|
|Fixed In Version:||squid 220.127.116.11||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
It was found that when transparent interception mode was enabled in squid a remote attacker could bypass access controls implemented for certain web elements like Flash and Java and communicate with restricted intranet sites via crafted Host headers.
|Last Closed:||2016-04-07 11:17:10 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:||488503, 488504, 488505, 488506, 488507, 488508, 865991, 1303061|
Description Vincent Danen 2009-03-04 17:51:01 UTC
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures assigned an identifier CVE-2009-0801 to the following vulnerability: Name: CVE-2009-0801 URL: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0801 Assigned: 20090304 Reference: CERT-VN:VU#435052 Reference: URL: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/435052 Reference: BID:33858 Reference: URL: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/33858 Squid, when transparent interception mode is enabled, uses the HTTP Host header to determine the remote endpoint, which allows remote attackers to bypass access controls for Flash, Java, Silverlight, and probably other technologies, and possibly communicate with restricted intranet sites, via a crafted web page that causes a client to send HTTP requests with a modified Host header.
Comment 2 Vincent Danen 2009-03-04 17:57:27 UTC
Comment 3 Henrik Nordström 2009-03-05 12:39:10 UTC
As in most matters there is a tradeoff between efficienty, simplicity and "security" in this matter. Imho (as an individual) the main security flaw is allowing untrusted "applets" direct network access bypassing the HTTP stack of the browser they run within. Having a browser plugin implement their own HTTP stack is...
Comment 4 Vincent Danen 2009-12-04 22:25:04 UTC
From what I can see, there is still no upstream fix for this.
Comment 5 Josh Bressers 2011-07-27 15:32:15 UTC
This is being tracked upstream here: http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3243
Comment 7 Josh Bressers 2011-07-27 15:44:30 UTC
Comment 8 Vincent Danen 2011-08-30 17:55:12 UTC
Upstream has corrected this in 18.104.22.168: http://www.squid-cache.org/Advisories/SQUID-2011_1.txt Regarding older squid versions, the advisory states: "Due to the design of request handling processes in older Squid patches and fixed releases for older versions of Squid are not being provided at this time."
Comment 9 Tomas Hoger 2011-08-31 17:20:37 UTC
Upstream bug also indicates that the fix is not backportable to pre-3.2 versions, as it depends on other internal changes done during the 3.2 development. SQUID-2011:1 is less clear, as it says upstream does not provide any backports to older version as this time, not saying if it's planned for the future. As for patch in comment #6, it seems incomplete and missing all the hostHeaderVerify() code. Henrik, do you know of any good place that describes what checks exactly are now performed by Squid? Based on my reading so far, it seems the core is the check of client TCP connection destination IP / port against HTTP header info for consistency. Though I don't think that info is always available to Squid (e.g. when connections are dnat-ed to proxy from gateway host). Any pointer or corrections are appreciated.
Comment 10 Tomas Hoger 2011-08-31 17:36:45 UTC
(In reply to comment #6) > Created attachment 515548 [details] > Upstream patch This seems to be: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~squid/squid/3.2/revision/11253 While these are also part of the fix: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~squid/squid/3.2/revision/11252 http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~squid/squid/3.2/revision/11266 http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~squid/squid/3.2/revision/11267 Release notes change with some brief info: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~squid/squid/3.2/revision/11302
Comment 11 Henrik Nordström 2011-08-31 20:39:00 UTC
I have not kept a close eye on these changs. If you need some clarification I think the best is to post your question to firstname.lastname@example.org. As you correctly note this won't work at all if you DNAT externally to the Squid box as you then overwrite the original destination IP:port irrecoverably. Such setups is considered broken and have always been. Better to use policy routing and do the IP interception on the Squid box preserving data properly (i.e. WCCP, route maps, policy routes etc on the gateway..)
Comment 13 Vincent Danen 2012-05-28 15:41:53 UTC
Fedora 16+ have 22.214.171.124, which contains the fix.