KAMINSKY vulnerability !!

P.A razor at meganet.net
Mon May 10 16:38:58 UTC 2010


At 1st I assumed an exploit after looking at the version of bind I was
using, which was a beta, I noticed that there was some talk of the beta
version crashing and the solution was to go to P1. Looking back on it I did
an emergency upgrade to the beta because of the kaminsky problem. Since both
our name server are chrooted and have never gave us any issues I slowly
forgot about the fact that I was using the beta version. Remember not until
today has the version giving me any issues.

As far as getting away with the version, I looked at the ISC site and
noticed that BIND 9.4.3-P5 doesn't seem to have an known issues. Since I'm
running BIND on an older server, centos 4.8 with one gig of ram, I decided
to compile 9.4.3-P5 instead of the newer version because some of my libs/etc
might be older and therefore not supported by the latest release. I need to
get these name servers up and running and being stable fast.

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users-bounces+pamaral=meganet.net at lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+pamaral=meganet.net at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Kevin Darcy
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:25 PM
To: bind-users at lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: KAMINSKY vulnerability !!

A) Why do you assume an exploit at all? Hopefully you understand that 
the vast majority of software crashes in the world are triggered by 
benign transactions.

B) From the www.isc.org website:

"BIND 9.4-ESV-R1 is now available. BIND 9.4-ESV-R1 is revision 1 of the 
extended release version for BIND 9.4. It is recommended that all BIND 
9.4.x users upgrade to BIND 9.4-ESV-R1."

If you have to upgrade anyway, but you're going to stick with 9.4.x, why 
would you try to "get away with" running something older and 
less-recommended in that generation of BIND 9 than 9.4-ESV-R1?

                                             - Kevin

On 5/10/2010 10:58 AM, P.A wrote:
> Stephane, do you think I can get away with running 9.4.3-P5 that doesn't
> seem to have any known issues. Also what exploit do you think caused my
> original issue?
> As far as running an old version its been stable for a long time and to be
> honest I forgot I was running that version.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at nic.fr]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:24 AM
> To: P.A
> Cc: bind-users at lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: KAMINSKY vulnerability !!
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:05:47AM -0400,
>   P.A<razor at meganet.net>  wrote
>   a message of 242 lines which said:
>> My question is did I just get rid by the kaminsky vulnerability?
> Not at all. The Kaminsky attack poisons the server, it does not crash
> it.
>> Primary server: BIND 9.4.3b2
> Why do you run a beta version (and an old one)?
> This issue is known
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/bind-users@isc.org/msg00323.html>  and has
> been fixed in production versions a long time ago.
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

bind-users mailing list
bind-users at lists.isc.org

More information about the bind-users mailing list