[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1008311734300.3520@faron.mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request: BGP protocol vulnerability
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Kurt Seifried wrote:
>> The BGP protocol and its various extensions require that BGP peering
>> sessions are terminated when a peer receives a BGP update message
>> which it considers semantically incorrect, leading to a persistent
>> denial-of-service condition if the update is received again after the
>> terminated session is reestablished.
>>
>> (This is not something new at all---we just need to get up, treat it
>> as a vulnerability, and fix it.)
>
> This sounds like CVE-2010-3035
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20100827-bgp.shtml
The way Cisco has written up this CVE, they are clearly focusing on the
generation of corrupted attributes, not a protocol problem. So, I'd want
a separate CVE for the general BGP design issue.
> or are you talking about another BGP issue? (but in the same "family"
> as CVE-2009-2055 and CVE-2010-3035).
I can't quite tell the difference between CVE-2009-2055 and what Florian
is requesting a CVE for. In CVE-2009-2055, Cisco seems to be implying
that it's a problem in XR, not the design of the whole protocol - but it's
not immediately clear if they even "fixed" it. The issue at hand is
whether we need a new CVE or a rewrite for the old CVE-2009-2055.
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
