![]() | ![]() |
|
|
OpenBSD Information for VU#328867
Vendor StatementThis says OpenBSD, but should not. The problem is in ipf. We told our users for years and years to not use the ipf ftp proxy. That said, we do not have ipf anymore. We've got our own packet filter, pf, which has a userland side proxy agent which is not vulnerable to this at all. I didn't install an ipf machine, but from looking at the code, I'm pretty sure it's vulnerable to this attack. So I guess the vendor statement could mention that and urge people to upgrade from pre-3.0 versions :) pf is not vulnerable, since it's not aware of the FTP protocol. ftp-proxy is used only for FTP clients behind the firewall. Even if you're running the reverse-ftp-proxy patch (for servers behind pf), it's not vulnerable, since it can't modify pf rules. OpenBSD >=3.0 uses pf, these notes do not apply to OpenBSD up to 2.9 which used ipf. In the presence of fragments, it is impossible to fully check the transport checksum without full reassembly (which is also susceptible to a memory resource attack). The OpenBSD PF firewall includes a variety of mechanisms that each can minimize the exposure to not only this attack but a variety of resource starvation attacks:
For ftp, we have an userland ftp-proxy(8) daemon that is not vulnerable to any of these attacks for the obvious reasons. ipf, which was included up to OpenBSD 2.9, contains a in-kernel ftp proxy which is significantly flawed in this way. However, we did not compile that into the default system because we considered it so flawed. Vendor InformationThe vendor has not provided us with any further information regarding this vulnerability.AddendumVersions of OpenBSD prior to 3.0 included IP Filter. See also:http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/AAMN-5ERQF6 http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/AAMN-5ERP4W
If you have feedback, comments, or additional information about this vulnerability, please send us
email. |
||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||