Hey Simon

On 9/8/18 11:17 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> The question is, should the above configuration be "baked in" to the code?

As I understand, this vulnerability arises from the Web Proxy Automatic 
Discovery (WPAD) protocol, not from dnsmasq itself.  And, dnsmasq configuration 
provides - or will provide - a configuration mechanism to obviate the 
shortcomings of the WPAD protocol.  My inclination would be to *not* change the 
code, on the off-chance that someone might consider this specific function of 
the WPAD protocol to be a "feature", and instead, to rely upon the proper 
dnsmasq configuration, which would make overt to the network administrator just 
how the "wpad" sub-domain is being handled.  And then, for instance, as you say,
could be recommended in the default dnsmasq configuration file.

Also, the CERT note says "Other autodiscovery names, such as, ISATAP, 
autodiscovery and autoconf may also be exploitable."  And dnsmasq could be 
playing "wack-a-mole" with sub-domain names in the code, if handled that way.  
It's easier to play "wack-a-mole" from the configuration file.

My first thoughts...


Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to