Guest MEB Posted July 9, 2008 Posted July 9, 2008 Here's a complimentary alert to the others I have recently posted in here, explaining another Internet/network vulnerability. DNS is an integral part of networking [the Internet is a network], networking doesn't occur without it, yet its inherent qualities and features are also its vulnerability. Make sure to look at the links and references. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 National Cyber Alert System Technical Cyber Security Alert TA08-190B Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Original release date: July 08, 2008 Last revised: -- Source: US-CERT Systems Affected Systems implementing: * Caching DNS resolvers * DNS stub resolvers Affected systems include both client and server systems, and any other networked systems that include this functionality. Overview Deficiencies in the DNS protocol and common DNS implementations facilitate DNS cache poisoning attacks. Effective attack techniques against these vulnerabilities have been demonstrated. I. Description DNS cache poisoning (sometimes referred to as cache pollution) is an attack technique that allows an attacker to introduce forged DNS information into the cache of a caching nameserver. The general concept has been known for some time, and a number of inherent deficiencies in the DNS protocol and defects in common DNS implementations that facilitate DNS cache poisoning have previously been identified and described in public literature. Examples of these vulnerabilities can be found in Vulnerability Note VU#800113. Recent research into these and other related vulnerabilities has produced extremely effective exploitation methods to achieve cache poisoning. Tools and techniques have been developed that can reliably poison a domain of the attacker's choosing on most current implementations. As a result, the consensus of DNS software implementers is to implement source port randomization in their resolvers as a mitigation. US-CERT is tracking this issue as VU#800113. This reference number corresponds to CVE-2008-1447. II. Impact An attacker with the ability to conduct a successful cache poisoning attack can cause a nameserver's clients to contact the incorrect, and possibly malicious, hosts for particular services. Consequently, web traffic, email, and other important network data can be redirected to systems under the attacker's control. III. Solution Apply a patch from your vendor Patches have been released by a number of vendors to implement source port randomization in the nameserver. This change significantly reduces the practicality of cache poisoning attacks. Please see the Systems Affected section of Vulnerability Note VU#800113 for additional details for specific vendors. As mentioned above, stub resolvers are also vulnerable to these attacks. Stub resolvers that will issue queries in response to attacker behavior, and may receive packets from an attacker, should be patched. System administrators should be alert for patches to client operating systems that implement port randomization in the stub resolver. Workarounds Restrict access Administrators, particularly those who are unable to apply a patch, can limit exposure to this vulnerability by restricting sources that can ask for recursion. Note that restricting access will still allow attackers with access to authorized hosts to exploit this vulnerability. Filter traffic at network perimeters Because the ability to spoof IP addresses is necessary to conduct these attacks, administrators should take care to filter spoofed addresses at the network perimeter. IETF Request for Comments (RFC) documents RFC 2827, RFC 3704, and RFC 3013 describe best current practices (BCPs) for implementing this defense. It is important to understand your network's configuration and service requirements before deciding what changes are appropriate. Run a local DNS cache In lieu of strong port randomization characteristics in a stub resolver, administrators can protect their systems by using local caching full-service resolvers, both on the client systems and on servers that are topologically close on the network to the client systems. This should be done in conjunction with the network segmentation and filtering strategies mentioned above. Disable recursion Disable recursion on any nameserver responding to DNS requests made by untrusted systems. Implement source port randomization Vendors that implement DNS software are encouraged to review IETF Internet Draft, "Measures for making DNS more resilient against forged answers," for additional information about implementing mitigations in their products. This document is a work in progress and may change prior to its publication as an RFC, if it is approved. IV. References * US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#800113 - <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113> * US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#484649 - <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/484649> * US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#252735 - <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/252735> * US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#927905 - <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/927905> * US-CERT Vulnerability Note VU#457875 - <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/457875> * Internet Draft: Measures for making DNS more resilient against forged answers - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience> * RFC 3833 - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3833> * RFC 2827 - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2827> * RFC 3704 - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3704> * RFC 3013 - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3013> * Microsoft Security Bulletin MS08-037 - <http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-037.mspx> * Internet Systems Consortium BIND Vulnerabilities - <http://www.isc.org/sw/bind/bind-security.php> ____________________________________________________________________ US-CERT thanks Dan Kaminsky of IOActive and Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) for notifying us about this problem and for helping us to construct this advisory. ____________________________________________________________________ The most recent version of this document can be found at: <http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA08-190B.html> ____________________________________________________________________ Feedback can be directed to US-CERT Technical Staff. Please send email to <cert@cert.org> with "TA08-190B Feedback VU#800113" in the subject. ____________________________________________________________________ For instructions on subscribing to or unsubscribing from this mailing list, visit <http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/signup.html>. ____________________________________________________________________ Produced 2008 by US-CERT, a government organization. Terms of use: <http://www.us-cert.gov/legal.html> ____________________________________________________________________ Revision History July 8, 2008: Initial release -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSHPRlXIHljM+H4irAQLzsgf/SHKWDnJ+/OI42x+gbgKTXCjKffPOYicl Sruqe4kCR3k0OuEZS90VsvhaSuiWV1GvASbwLDGTjfh1Q7jZU3g4GMY/DEcZXerF vGC/NiOuaoWfjLkQsOkJKIReKqcDZEOVQD7PIIxVYYZJn8u99X/JSGQ/KMe8h5x+ CzBVepk06FvRnT3+y21YECnMRoTzxTmqbLqm1lH9OnyRZ+ORoE4QBUJvN69EB4fO 15JF+y8ZKcGJaczMM+mdNOfaQcQAHZ1B8zTQlBfm1L35gtjnjhvZAwHtde/E0sl6 vGaDtbGJ/IPRS5b5y/mXReOl1ExrMb0VyWneM3Ddcdo7X5iB892AUg== =22We -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted July 9, 2008 Posted July 9, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: > An attacker with the ability to conduct a successful cache poisoning >attack > can cause a nameserver's clients to contact the incorrect, and possibly > malicious, hosts for particular services. Consequently, web traffic, >email, > and other important network data can be redirected to systems under the > attacker's control. To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: http://www.doxpara.com/ BTW, I was directed to the above site by the following Murdoch publication, so I'm reasonably confident that it's safe ;-) http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23992662-5014108,00.html - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest smith Posted July 9, 2008 Posted July 9, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not > here@hotmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> An attacker with the ability to conduct a successful >> cache poisoning >>attack >> can cause a nameserver's clients to contact the >> incorrect, and possibly malicious, hosts for particular >> services. Consequently, web traffic, >>email, >> and other important network data can be redirected to >> systems under the attacker's control. > > To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, click > the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: > http://www.doxpara.com/ > > BTW, I was directed to the above site by the following > Murdoch publication, so I'm reasonably confident that it's > safe ;-) > http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23992662-501 > 4108,00.html > > - Franc Zabkar I tried this and got a "your name server appears vulnerable message." However I noticed that the ip address in the message did not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. Is this normal that these two addresses would differ?
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted July 10, 2008 Posted July 10, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: >> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, click >> the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: >> http://www.doxpara.com/ >I tried this and got a "your name server appears vulnerable >message." > >However I noticed that the ip address in the message did not >match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. > >Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests sent to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose addresses the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is it possible that your router is configured like mine, ie is your DNS IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest smith Posted July 10, 2008 Posted July 10, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in news:9pja74d5hu7v0f7guqae1j39r2qkje00h8@4ax.com: > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> > put finger to keyboard and composed: > >>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >>news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: > >>> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, >>> click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: >>> http://www.doxpara.com/ > >>I tried this and got a "your name server appears >>vulnerable message." >> >>However I noticed that the ip address in the message did >>not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. >> >>Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? > > I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to > use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's > LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests sent > to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose addresses > the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is it possible > that your router is configured like mine, ie is your DNS > IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? > > - Franc Zabkar Beats me. I don't have a router that I know of. I plug my computer directly into a cable modem, and heaven only knows what the cable company does. I intended to get one but have never got around to it. I always assumed that the winipcfg address was the cable company's real dns server.
Guest Dan Posted July 10, 2008 Posted July 10, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnera Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnera I am going to jump in at this point and ask which router is best. I do not want a router with wireless capabilities. This router will be strictly wired only for security reasons, since I do not want to broadcast any signal that someone could detect. Thanks in advance for your opinion. "smith" wrote: > Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in > news:9pja74d5hu7v0f7guqae1j39r2qkje00h8@4ax.com: > > > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> > > put finger to keyboard and composed: > > > >>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in > >>news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: > > > >>> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, > >>> click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: > >>> http://www.doxpara.com/ > > > >>I tried this and got a "your name server appears > >>vulnerable message." > >> > >>However I noticed that the ip address in the message did > >>not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. > >> > >>Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? > > > > I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to > > use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's > > LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests sent > > to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose addresses > > the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is it possible > > that your router is configured like mine, ie is your DNS > > IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? > > > > - Franc Zabkar > > Beats me. > > I don't have a router that I know of. > > I plug my computer directly into a cable modem, and heaven only > knows what the cable company does. > > I intended to get one but have never got around to it. > > I always assumed that the winipcfg address was the cable > company's real dns server. >
Guest Vince Posted July 10, 2008 Posted July 10, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote: >III. Solution > >Apply a patch from your vendor There's nothing like reading multiple articles on something you know absolutely nothing about to make you feel dumber than a box of rocks. So . . . no patch will ever be forthcoming from Microsoft for Windows 9x, as it's well beyond its end of life. Is Win9x vulnerable to this problem?
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted July 10, 2008 Posted July 10, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:39:44 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >news:9pja74d5hu7v0f7guqae1j39r2qkje00h8@4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> >> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >>>news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: >> >>>> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, >>>> click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: >>>> http://www.doxpara.com/ >> >>>I tried this and got a "your name server appears >>>vulnerable message." >>> >>>However I noticed that the ip address in the message did >>>not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. >>> >>>Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? >> >> I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to >> use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's >> LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests sent >> to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose addresses >> the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is it possible >> that your router is configured like mine, ie is your DNS >> IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? >> >> - Franc Zabkar > >Beats me. > >I don't have a router that I know of. > >I plug my computer directly into a cable modem, and heaven only >knows what the cable company does. > >I intended to get one but have never got around to it. > >I always assumed that the winipcfg address was the cable >company's real dns server. Type your DNS address into the search box at this URL: http://ws.arin.net/whois If you get something like this ... OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority OrgID: IANA .... then it's a LAN address. Otherwise it's the WAN address of an external DNS server. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest MEB Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning In news:vivc74djui7cfmnngra10d3petrn0ei9h1@4ax.com at , Vince contemplated and posted: | On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> | wrote: | |>III. Solution |> |>Apply a patch from your vendor | | There's nothing like reading multiple articles on something you know | absolutely nothing about to make you feel dumber than a box of rocks. | | So . . . no patch will ever be forthcoming from Microsoft for | Windows 9x, as it's well beyond its end of life. Is Win9x vulnerable | to this problem? WEEEEELLL, no exactly true, there will be no patch from Microsoft, but that certainly doesn't mean 9X is left defenseless. Might try MSFN and other un-official sites for a patch IF you need one, however, the issue affects your ISP more than you initially, and the sites you visit e.g., Apache, IIS, Server 2003/2008, Solaris, etc., will be receiving the patches. 9X will be vulnerable via the DNS activity pending whatever work-arounds/fixes are provided, though HOW your DNS is handled will determine the effect and extent of your vulnerability. For instance: AOL just issued a work-around/patch, whether this is the final fix or not is unknown at this point. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________
Guest MEB Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning ADDENDUM In news:OKmg%23Pv4IHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl at , MEB contemplated and posted: | In news:vivc74djui7cfmnngra10d3petrn0ei9h1@4ax.com at , | Vince contemplated and posted: || On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> || wrote: || ||>III. Solution ||> ||>Apply a patch from your vendor || || There's nothing like reading multiple articles on something you know || absolutely nothing about to make you feel dumber than a box of rocks. || || So . . . no patch will ever be forthcoming from Microsoft for || Windows 9x, as it's well beyond its end of life. Is Win9x vulnerable || to this problem? | | WEEEEELLL, no exactly true, there will be no patch from Microsoft, | but that certainly doesn't mean 9X is left defenseless. | | Might try MSFN and other un-official sites for a patch IF you need | one, however, the issue affects your ISP more than you initially, and | the sites you visit e.g., Apache, IIS, Server 2003/2008, Solaris, | etc., will be receiving the patches. 9X will be vulnerable via the | DNS activity pending whatever work-arounds/fixes are provided, though | HOW your DNS is handled will determine the effect and extent of your | vulnerability. For instance: AOL just issued a work-around/patch, | whether this is the final fix or not is unknown at this point. | | -- | MEB Of course the above does not mean that unsavory/malicious sites or their linked ADS and other links, can not be used against ANY system. So, as usual, you must make a effort to address the issue locally, first by your activities, and with whatever you think you need. If you're paranoid or wish more security [which some label paranoia], there are/were DNS and web server/proxy services/applications for 9X which would intercept these activities, and your HOSTS, firewall, script/scripting, and TCP/IP setup can, once again, be used to help negate the issue. *NOTE:* This isn't something new to the hacker/cracker world, the reason its now of deeper concern is the extended use on the Internet and against business and commercial sites [which of course then affects the Internet user]. By Spacefox, spacefox@securesphere.net Secure Sphere Crew - January 23rd, 2002 http://www.securesphere.net/download/papers/dnsspoof.htm http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=DNS+cache+poisoning&btnG=Google+Search -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Always knew you were an idiot. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "smith" <smith@smith.com> wrote in message news:ePxBCim4IHA.1056@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in > news:9pja74d5hu7v0f7guqae1j39r2qkje00h8@4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> >> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >>>news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: >> >>>> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, >>>> click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: >>>> http://www.doxpara.com/ >> >>>I tried this and got a "your name server appears >>>vulnerable message." >>> >>>However I noticed that the ip address in the message did >>>not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. >>> >>>Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? >> >> I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to >> use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's >> LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests sent >> to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose addresses >> the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is it possible >> that your router is configured like mine, ie is your DNS >> IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? >> >> - Franc Zabkar > > Beats me. > > I don't have a router that I know of. > > I plug my computer directly into a cable modem, and heaven only > knows what the cable company does. > > I intended to get one but have never got around to it. > > I always assumed that the winipcfg address was the cable > company's real dns server.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning You should stop reading things you don't understand. If the fix involves patching your desktop OS, you're right, Windows 98 won't be patched. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Vince" <nobody@home.invalid> wrote in message news:vivc74djui7cfmnngra10d3petrn0ei9h1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>III. Solution >> >>Apply a patch from your vendor > > There's nothing like reading multiple articles on something you know > absolutely nothing about to make you feel dumber than a box of rocks. > > So . . . no patch will ever be forthcoming from Microsoft for > Windows 9x, as it's well beyond its end of life. Is Win9x vulnerable > to this problem?
Guest smith Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in news:s44d74l329asemkcacob1tmfib13rdhss1@4ax.com: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:39:44 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> > put finger to keyboard and composed: > >>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >>news:9pja74d5hu7v0f7guqae1j39r2qkje00h8@4ax.com: >> >>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:09 -0700, smith >>> <smith@smith.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>> >>>>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in >>>>news:aq8a745mtvoaph87pmieq7o2cuslhja5es@4ax.com: >>> >>>>> To find out if the DNS server you use is vulnerable, >>>>> click the "Check My DNS" button at this URL: >>>>> http://www.doxpara.com/ >>> >>>>I tried this and got a "your name server appears >>>>vulnerable message." >>>> >>>>However I noticed that the ip address in the message did >>>>not match the address for my DNS server in winipcfg. >>>> >>>>Is this normal that these two addresses would differ? >>> >>> I don't know, but in my case I've configured my router to >>> use DNS Relay. This means that winipcfg shows my router's >>> LAN IP as the DNS server address, and any DNS requests >>> sent to it are relayed to one of two DNS servers whose >>> addresses the router has learned from my ISP via PPP. Is >>> it possible that your router is configured like mine, ie >>> is your DNS IP, as reported by winipcfg, a LAN or WAN IP? >>> >>> - Franc Zabkar >> >>Beats me. >> >>I don't have a router that I know of. >> >>I plug my computer directly into a cable modem, and heaven >>only knows what the cable company does. >> >>I intended to get one but have never got around to it. >> >>I always assumed that the winipcfg address was the cable >>company's real dns server. > > Type your DNS address into the search box at this URL: > http://ws.arin.net/whois > > If you get something like this ... > > OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > OrgID: IANA > > ... then it's a LAN address. Otherwise it's the WAN address > of an external DNS server. > > - Franc Zabkar It was a WAN. The two DNS addresses in my winipcfg belong to my ISP and the address I see in the check dns box at http://www.doxpara.com/ appears safe message is 68.166.125.227, which belongs Covad Communications
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted July 11, 2008 Posted July 11, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:48:04 -0700, smith <smith@smith.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >It was a WAN. The two DNS addresses in my winipcfg belong to my >ISP and the address I see in the check dns box at >http://www.doxpara.com/ appears safe message is 68.166.125.227, >which belongs Covad Communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covad_Communications "The company offers DSL, Voice over IP, T1, Web hosting, managed security, IP and dial-up, and bundled voice and data services directly through Covad's network and through Internet Service Providers, value-added resellers, telecommunications carriers and affinity groups to small and medium-sized businesses and home users." I suspect that your ISP resells Covad's services and relays your DNS requests to Covad's DNS server. Having said that, the IP address you have given us equates to "smtp.cotse.net" which looks like your ISP's mail server ??? My own ISP's addresses, as reported by my router, are 192.231.203.3 and 192.231.203.132. However, just as in your case, Doxpara reports a different DNS address, namely 150.101.120.5, but all three addresses still belong to my ISP. FWIW, the following is what I see when I perform traceroutes to your address and to my own ISP's DNS addresses. C:\WIN98SE>tracert 68.166.125.227 Tracing route to smtp.cotse.net [68.166.125.227] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 30 ms 26 ms 25 ms lns10.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.88] <snip> 15 260 ms 264 ms 264 ms COVAD.car1.Boston1.Level3.net [63.211.168.26] 16 * * * Request timed out. 17 * * * Request timed out. 18 294 ms 298 ms 298 ms smtp.cotse.net [68.166.125.227] Trace complete. C:\WIN98SE>tracert 192.231.203.132 Tracing route to resolv.internode.on.net [192.231.203.132] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 27 ms 26 ms 25 ms lns10.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.88] 3 30 ms 26 ms 25 ms vl14.cor2.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.83] 4 28 ms 32 ms 25 ms resolv.internode.on.net [192.231.203.132] Trace complete. C:\WIN98SE>tracert 192.231.203.3 Tracing route to ns4.on.net [192.231.203.3] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 26 ms 26 ms 25 ms lns10.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.88] 3 25 ms 26 ms 25 ms vl14.cor2.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.83] 4 51 ms 52 ms 52 ms gi0-3.bdr1.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.199.24 5] 5 55 ms 52 ms 52 ms pos3-2.bdr2.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.212.14 1] 6 49 ms 52 ms 52 ms po2.cor3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.212.155] 7 47 ms 52 ms 52 ms ns4.on.net [192.231.203.3] Trace complete. C:\WIN98SE>tracert 150.101.120.5 Tracing route to resolv1.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.120.5] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 24 ms 28 ms 26 ms lns10.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.88] 3 26 ms 25 ms 25 ms vl14.cor2.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.197.83] 4 26 ms 25 ms 26 ms resolv1.syd6.internode.on.net [150.101.120.5] Trace complete. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Dan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnera Re: US-CERT TCSA TA08-190B -- Multiple DNS implementations vulnera My Windows 98 Second Edition system is not vulnerable according to doxpara.com. Here are the results for public benefit for those who are interested. Your ISP's name server, 68.87.85.101, has other protections above and beyond port randomization against the recently discovered DNS flaws. There is no reason to be concerned about the results seen below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Requests seen for 8f63238a336e.toorrr.com: 68.87.85.101:17812 TXID=12982 68.87.85.101:18266 TXID=3941 68.87.85.101:17548 TXID=7778 68.87.85.101:17715 TXID=50436 68.87.85.101:17765 TXID=35677 ISNOM:ISNOM TXID=ISNOM I am using Comcast Cable. "Gary S. Terhune" wrote: > You should stop reading things you don't understand. If the fix involves > patching your desktop OS, you're right, Windows 98 won't be patched. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "Vince" <nobody@home.invalid> wrote in message > news:vivc74djui7cfmnngra10d3petrn0ei9h1@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:51:31 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>III. Solution > >> > >>Apply a patch from your vendor > > > > There's nothing like reading multiple articles on something you know > > absolutely nothing about to make you feel dumber than a box of rocks. > > > > So . . . no patch will ever be forthcoming from Microsoft for > > Windows 9x, as it's well beyond its end of life. Is Win9x vulnerable > > to this problem? > > >
Recommended Posts