full-disclosure - Fw: [NTBUGTRAQ] Win 2003 DNS requests makes replies over 512 byte PIX limit

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]

Message-ID: <sjmznlx86ev.fsf@kikki.mit.edu>
From: derek at ihtfp.com (Derek Atkins)
Subject: Fw: [NTBUGTRAQ] Win 2003 DNS requests makes replies over 512 byte PIX limit

Mathias Gerber <mathias@...ergga.ch> writes:

> Hello hggdh,
> On Thu, 8 May 2003 12:09:22 -0500 you wrote:
> > FYI. Any ideas?
> > > We are running the latest version (6.3.1) on our Cisco PIX and it
> > > appears that there is hard limit of 512 bytes on ANY UDP packets
> > > arriving on port 53.  Everything exceeding that is dropped.
>
> AFAIK the DNS uses TCP for larger replys.

Yea, but resolvers normally use a response with the TC-bit set in
order to signal the fact that the response was truncated and TCP
should be used!  If the UDP response is dropped, then a resolver will
never see the response and never fall back to TCP.  It will timeout
and fail instead.

Also, it's possible to negotiate larger-than-512-byte UDP packets.
For example with EDNS(0) you can use larger UDP packets.  Just
dropping larger packets is a PIX bug and can cause a DNS black-hole.

> mathias

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       derek@...fp.com             www.ihtfp.com