This bug was fixed in the package network-manager -
network-manager (1.2.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.3) xenial; urgency=medium
* debian/tests/wpa-dhclient: Don't assume that the IPv6 prefix length from
the DHCP server is /64. (LP: #1609898)
network-manager (1.2.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.2) xenial; urgency=medium
[ Martin Pitt ]
* Read config and system connections from /run/NetworkManager/ to support
netplan (LP: #1627641)
* debian/gbp.conf: Set debian-branch to xenial
[ Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre ]
* Add dns-manager-don-t-merge-split-DNS-search-domains.patch: do not add
split DNS search domains to resolv.conf; doing so would risk leaking names
to non-VPN DNS nameservers when attempting to resolve non- FQDN names.
-- Martin Pitt <martin.p...@ubuntu.com> Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:29:22
** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu Xenial)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
Don't write search domains to resolv.conf in the case of split DNS
Status in network-manager package in Ubuntu:
Status in network-manager source package in Xenial:
All VPN users meaning to use split-tunnelling in a situation where leaking
DNS data to the internet about what might be behind their VPN is undesirable.
1) connect to VPN
2) Use dig to request a name that should be on the VPN
3) Verify (kill -USR1 the dnsmasq binary from NM) that the request has only
gone through the VPN nameservers (only its request number should have increased
4) Use dig to request a name off-VPN, such as google.com.
5) Verify (kill -USR1 again) that the request has caused the non-VPN
nameserver request number to increase, and that the VPN number has not
It is easier to verify this when there is as little traffic as
possible on the system, to avoid spurious DNS requests which would
make it harder to validate the counters.
This change modifies the way in which DNS nameservers and search domains are
passed to dnsmasq, as such, if a VPN is configured in a non-standard way and
intended to be used to resolve all network requests (which is typically not the
case for split-tunnelling) or if the public network is intended to always
resolve all requests while the VPN still provides search domains, one might
observe incorrect behavior.
Possible failure cases would include failure to resolve names
correctly (resulting in NXDOMAIN or REFUSED from dnsmasq) or resolving
to the incorrect values (if the wrong nameserver is used).
Currently, NM will write all search domains to both any DNS-handling
plugins running, and also to resolv.conf / resolvconf; in all cases.
The issue is that doing so means that in the split-DNS case on VPNs,
you might get a negative response from all nameservers, then a new
request by glibc with the search tacked on, to nameservers again,
which might cause DNS requests for "private" resources (say, on the
VPN) to be sent to external, untrusted resolvers, or for DNS queries
not meant for VPN nameservers to be sent through the VPN anyway.
This is fixable in the case where we have a caching plugin running
(such as dnsmasq). dnsmasq will already know about the search domains
and use that to limit queries to the right nameservers when a VPN is
running. Writing search domains to resolv.conf is unnecessary in this
We should still write search domains if no caching gets done, as we
then need to expect glibc to send requests as it otherwise would.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : email@example.com
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp