>    8.2. A denial of service attack can be launched by flooding an update
>    forwarder with TCP sessions containing updates that the primary
>    master server will ultimately refuse due to permission problems.
>    This arises due to the requirement that an update forwarder receiving
>    a request via TCP use a synchronous TCP session for its forwarding
>    operation.  The connection management mechanisms of [RFC1035 4.2.2]
>    are sufficient to prevent large scale damage from such an attack, but
>    not to prevent some queries from going unanswered during the attack.

Newest versions of BIND8 die when secondary DNS authorities (or any other hosts) 
shamelessly
ask for zone transfers/updates in a mass amount,although there are some 
strongly-defined
acl's. The result is a BIG DoS, rising the load average to Himalaya and blowing up the 
dns server.
Bug reported already,with a short and concise (should I say amateurish?) bounce 
answer: "Hell, you can DoS
a lot of services that way!". Just imagine DNS1.microsoft.com under heavy assault.What 
if the next day
someone finds a good apache DoS and gets rejected ?
Oh,I remembered. Spoofed IP packets are the favourites of the day, you need only to 
attack not to
listen to the last whispers of a dying server. You just don't want to be logged,
do you ? :>

> All Dynamic DNS services that I know of are vulnerable .
> I am not going to include code, but it is a trivial task to spoof a packet
> (UDP or TCP) with RR data in the
> format this RFC specifies.  In other words, anyone can manipulate RR
> records by sending bogus data
> because the only authentication is IP.

Good old juggernaut should be enough for that >=-). For kiddies it's reccomended to 
read RFC's
and assemble packets on their own, there are a lot of packet-assembling tools on the 
Net.


--

Stefan Laudat
Data Networks Analyst
ASIT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skills page http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=30777
----------------------------------------------------------------

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I  !pleH

Reply via email to