CVE-2020-8625

Description

A buffer overflow flaw was found in the SPNEGO implementation used by BIND. This flaw allows a remote attacker to cause the named process to crash or possibly perform remote code execution. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality, integrity, as well as system availability.

Statement

BIND servers shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux are compiled with GSS-TSIG and are therefore affected by this flaw. However, these BIND packages use the default settings and are not vulnerable by default.

Mitigation

As per upstream:

BIND servers are vulnerable if they are running an affected version and are configured to use GSS-TSIG features.

In a configuration which uses BIND's default settings, the vulnerable code path is NOT exposed, but a server can be rendered vulnerable by explicitly setting valid values for the tkey-gssapi-keytab or tkey-gssapi-credentialconfiguration options.

Although the default configuration is not vulnerable, GSS-TSIG is frequently used in networks where BIND is integrated with Samba, as well as in mixed-server environments that combine BIND servers with Active Directory domain controllers.

This vulnerability only affects servers configured to use GSS-TSIG, most often to sign dynamic updates. If another mechanism can be used to authenticate updates, the vulnerability can be avoided by choosing not to enable the use of GSS-TSIG features.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Info alert:Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown

Red HatNVDcve.org
Base Score8.18.1N/A
Attack VectorNetworkNetworkN/A
Attack ComplexityHighHighN/A
Privileges RequiredNoneNoneN/A
User InteractionNoneNoneN/A
ScopeUnchangedUnchangedN/A
ConfidentialityHighHighN/A
Integrity ImpactHighHighN/A
Availability ImpactHighHighN/A

Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Understanding the Weakness (CWE)

Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability

Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Modify Memory

If the memory accessible by the attacker can be effectively controlled, it may be possible to execute arbitrary code, as with a standard buffer overflow. If the attacker can overwrite a pointer's worth of memory (usually 32 or 64 bits), they can alter the intended control flow by redirecting a function pointer to their own malicious code. Even when the attacker can only modify a single byte arbitrary code execution can be possible. Sometimes this is because the same problem can be exploited repeatedly to the same effect. Other times it is because the attacker can overwrite security-critical application-specific data -- such as a flag indicating whether the user is an administrator.

Availability,Confidentiality

Technical Impact: Read Memory; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)

Out of bounds memory access will very likely result in the corruption of relevant memory, and perhaps instructions, possibly leading to a crash. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.

Confidentiality

Technical Impact: Read Memory

In the case of an out-of-bounds read, the attacker may have access to sensitive information. If the sensitive information contains system details, such as the current buffer's position in memory, this knowledge can be used to craft further attacks, possibly with more severe consequences.

Acknowledgements

Red Hat would like to thank ISC for reporting this issue. Upstream acknowledges Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative as the original reporter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.