Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | [NEWS] TCP Does Not Adequately Validate Segments Before Updating Timestamp Value |
|---|---|
| Date: | 22 May 2005 18:08:24 +0200 |
The following security advisory is sent to the securiteam mailing list, and can be found at the SecuriTeam web site: http://www.securiteam.com - - promotion The SecuriTeam alerts list - Free, Accurate, Independent. Get your security news from a reliable source. http://www.securiteam.com/mailinglist.html - - - - - - - - - TCP Does Not Adequately Validate Segments Before Updating Timestamp Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY Certain TCP implementations may allow a remote attacker to arbitrarily modify host timestamp values, leading to a denial-of-service condition. DETAILS Systems Affected: Vendor - Status - Date Updated 3Com - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Alcatel - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Apple Computer Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 AT&T - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Avaya - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Avici Systems Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Borderware - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Check Point - Not Vulnerable - 19-May-2005 Chiaro Networks - Unknown - 18-May-2005 Cisco Systems Inc. - Vulnerable - 18-May-2005 Clavister - Not Vulnerable - 18-May-2005 Computer Associates - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Conectiva - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Cray Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Cwnt - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Data Connection - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Debian - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 EMC Corporation - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Engarde - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 eSoft - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Extreme Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 F5 Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Fortinet - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Foundry Networks Inc. - Not Vulnerable - 18-May-2005 FreeBSD - Vulnerable - 16-Mar-2005 Fujitsu - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 GTA - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Hewlett-Packard Company - Unknown - 17-May-2005 Hitachi - Vulnerable - 19-May-2005 Hyperchip - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 IBM - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 IBM eServer - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 IBM zSeries - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Immunix - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Ingrian Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Inoto - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Intel - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Internet Security Systems Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 IP Filter - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Juniper Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Lachman - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Linksys - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Lucent Technologies - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Luminous - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 MandrakeSoft - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Microsoft Corporation - Vulnerable - 18-May-2005 MontaVista Software - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Multi-Tech Systems Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Multinet - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 NEC Corporation - Not Vulnerable - 17-May-2005 NetBSD - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Netfilter - Not Vulnerable - 17-Mar-2005 Netscreen - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Network Appliance - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 NextHop - Not Vulnerable - 16-Mar-2005 Nokia - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Nortel Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Novell - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 OpenBSD - Vulnerable - 18-May-2005 Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Red Hat Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Redback Networks Inc. - Vulnerable - 19-May-2005 Riverstone Networks - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 SCO Linux - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 SCO Unix - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Secure Computing Corporation - Not Vulnerable - 11-Apr-2005 SecureWorx - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Sequent - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 SGI - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Sony Corporation - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Stonesoft - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Sun Microsystems Inc. - Not Vulnerable - 11-Apr-2005 SuSE Inc. - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Symantec Corporation - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 TurboLinux - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 Unisys - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 WatchGuard - Not Vulnerable - 15-Apr-2005 Wind River Systems Inc. - Unknown - 18-May-2005 ZyXEL - Unknown - 9-Mar-2005 The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is defined in RFC 793 as a means to provides reliable host-to-host transmission between hosts in a packet-switched computer networks. RFC 1323 introduced techniques to increase the performance of TCP. Two such techniques are TCP timestamps and Protection Against Wrapped Sequence Numbers (PAWS). In certain implementations of TCP with timestamps enabled, both hosts maintain an internal timer that is used to detect segment loss and regulate traffic flow. PAWS uses timestamps to prevent duplicate or old segments from corrupting an active connection. In PAWS with the timestamps option enabled, hosts use an internal timer to track the value of the timestamp in incoming segments against the last valid timestamp recorded. If the segment's timestamp is larger than the value of the last valid timestamp and the sequence number is less than the last acknowledgment sent, then the host's internal timer is updated with the new timestamp value and the segment is passed on for further processing. Otherwise, the segment is rejected as too old or a duplicate. If a remote attacker can determine the source and destination ports and IP addresses of both hosts engaged in an active connection, that attacker may be able to inject a specially crafted segment into the connection. When the spoofed segment is received the host's internal timer value will be changed to the value in the crafted segment. Please note that, in certain TCP implementations, sequence numbers are not properly validated before the internal timer is updated, thus an attacker does not need to know a correct sequence number to change the internal timer. If the internal timer value is set to a large value, then it will likely be larger than the timestamp value in subsequent incoming segments. This will cause new, legitimate TCP segments to be evaluated as too old and discarded. As segments are rejected, the flow of data between hosts stops, resulting in a denial-of-service condition. For more information about TCP, timestamps, and PAWS please see RFC 793 and RFC 1323. Impact: An unauthenticated, remote attacker could cause TCP connections to abort/drop segments, leading to a denial-of-service condition. Solution: Apply Patch Users who suspect they are vulnerable are encouraged to check with their vendor to determine the appropriate action to take. Please see the list of vendors we have notified below. Disable PAWS As a workaround, disable PAWS and TCP timestamps if they are not needed. CVE Information: <http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-0356> CAN-2005-0356 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The information has been provided by Noritoshi Demizu. The original article can be found at: <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/637934> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/637934 ======================================== This bulletin is sent to members of the SecuriTeam mailing list. To unsubscribe from the list, send mail with an empty subject line and body to: list-unsubscribe@securiteam.com In order to subscribe to the mailing list, simply forward this email to: list-subscribe@securiteam.com ==================== ==================== DISCLAIMER: The information in this bulletin is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. In no event shall we be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [UNIX] Linux Binfmt Elf Core Dump Buffer Overflow, SecuriTeam |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [EXPL] Procps Buffer Overflow (pwdx, Exploit), SecuriTeam |
| Previous by Thread: | [UNIX] Linux Binfmt Elf Core Dump Buffer Overflow, SecuriTeam |
| Next by Thread: | [EXPL] Procps Buffer Overflow (pwdx, Exploit), SecuriTeam |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |