Re: Positive Technologies Security Advisory 2003-0307: DoS-attack in Kerio WinRoute Firewall
From: Peter Pentchev (roam@ringlet.net)
Date: 04/01/03
- Previous message: euronymous: "XSS in Python Documentation Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:49:58 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Dmitry Maksimov <dmaksimov@ptsecurity.ru>
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@ringlet.net roam@sbnd.net roam@FreeBSD.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.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: euronymous: "XSS in Python Documentation Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
