[DNSOP] Re: Potentially interesting DNSSEC library CVE

Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 23 July 2024 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDBAC2163B1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id prCsty2r6GPS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531E3C1F6FB6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 06:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1sWF8d-0000LsC; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:01:07 +0200
Message-Id: <m1sWF8d-0000LsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-5@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:41:36 +0000 ." <5a524dc46c1fbb16b89412054635d3e766d638cb.camel@aisec.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:01:05 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: G6DV3KHHD634RYOHNMFFKWWTJX2GQODQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: G6DV3KHHD634RYOHNMFFKWWTJX2GQODQ
X-MailFrom: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Bellebaum, Thomas" <thomas.bellebaum@aisec.fraunhofer.de>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Potentially interesting DNSSEC library CVE
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/K1SxIeCdJjRw2ZPxm4ejonriBuE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

> The vulnerability now has a CVE and a GitHub Advisory published
> here:
> https://github.com/dnsjava/dnsjava/security/advisories/GHSA-cfxw-4h78-h7fw
> 
> I suspect this might be useful feedback to some of you designing
> DNSSEC validation routines, especially for validating stub resolvers.
> I have done little research into which other DNS libraries might
> be affected, but bind and unbound seem fine.

You are right about point 3 (all or any received records in a response relate
to the request)

However, it doesn't make sense to include step 4. A DNSSEC validator will 
have taken care of step 4.