3 ms·
> This is at least the second major dnsmasq coding mistake that has been published in recent memory. What was the first?
by yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
> This is at least the second major dnsmasq coding mistake that has been published in recent memory.
What was the first?
- tptacek 1y agoThere was like a memory corruption RCE not long ago.
- aspenmayer 1y agoI think there were two sets of 7 total vulnerabilities at the same time so they might be perceived as one event? I don’t know for sure, the wording was kind of ambiguous. https://openwrt.org/advisory/2021-01-19-1 https://openwrt.org/advisory/2021-01-19-1 > Dnsmasq has two sets of vulnerabilities, one set of memory corruption issues handling DNSSEC and a second set of issues validating DNS responses. These vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to corrupt memory on the target device and perform cache poisoning attacks against the target environment. > These vulnerabilities are also tracked as ICS-VU-668462 and referred to as DNSpooq. https://web.archive.org/web/20250121143405/https://www.jsof-tech.com/disclosures/dnspooq/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250121143405/https://www.jsof-... > DNSpooq - Kaminsky attack is back! > 7 new vulnerabilities are being disclosed in common DNS software dnsmasq, reminiscent of 2008 weaknesses in Internet DNS Architecture Some less breathless sourcing, though I can’t blame OP for being excited in the above post: https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/434904 https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/434904 https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-21-019-01 https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-21-019-...