bugtraq - Re: Positive Technologies Security Advisory 2003-0307: DoS-attack in Kerio WinRoute Firewall

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:49:58 +0300
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@...glet.net>
To: Dmitry Maksimov <dmaksimov@...ecurity.ru>
Subject: Re: Positive Technologies Security Advisory 2003-0307: DoS-attack in Kerio WinRoute Firewall

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:00:26AM +0400, Dmitry Maksimov wrote:
[snip]
> Positive  Technologies  reports that single simple HTTP request to Kerio
> Winroute Firewall Web administration interface (TCP/4080)
> 
> GET / HTTP/1.0
> Authorization: Basic XXX
>  
> instead of correct one:
> 
> GET / HTTP/1.0
> Host: server
> Authorization: Basic XXX
> 
> 
> causes 100% CPU utilization of attacked computer.

Hmm.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMHO version 1.0 of the HTTP protocol
does *not* require a Host header in the request.  The Host header is a
requirement in HTTP/1.1 for virtual hosting, isn't it?  Thus, an
HTTP/1.0 request without a Host header is perfectly valid, and expected.
This would mean that this application breaks not only on invalid
requests, but also on legitimate ones.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam@...glet.net    roam@...d.net    roam@...eBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I am jealous of the first word in this sentence.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped