ID CVE-2009-0265
Summary Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) BIND 9.6.0 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL EVP_VerifyFinal function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077 and CVE-2009-0025.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • ISC BIND 4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4
  • ISC BIND 4.9
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9
  • ISC BIND 4.9.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.2
  • ISC BIND 4.9.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.3
  • ISC BIND 4.9.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.4
  • ISC BIND 4.9.5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.5
  • ISC BIND 4.9.5 P1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.5:p1
  • ISC BIND 4.9.6
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.6
  • ISC BIND 4.9.7
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.7
  • ISC BIND 4.9.8
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.8
  • ISC BIND 4.9.9
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.9
  • ISC BIND 4.9.10
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:4.9.10
  • ISC BIND 8
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8
  • ISC BIND 8.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.1
  • ISC BIND 8.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.1.1
  • ISC BIND 8.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.1.2
  • ISC BIND 8.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2
  • ISC BIND 8.2 P1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2:p1
  • ISC BIND 8.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.1
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p1
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p2
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p3
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p4
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p5
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p6
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p6
  • ISC BIND 8.2.2 p7
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.2:p7
  • ISC BIND 8.2.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.3
  • ISC BIND 8.2.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.4
  • ISC BIND 8.2.5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.5
  • ISC BIND 8.2.6
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.6
  • ISC BIND 8.2.7
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.2.7
  • ISC BIND 8.3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.0
  • ISC BIND 8.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.1
  • ISC BIND 8.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.2
  • ISC BIND 8.3.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.3
  • ISC BIND 8.3.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.4
  • ISC BIND 8.3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.5
  • ISC BIND 8.3.6
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.3.6
  • ISC BIND 8.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.4
  • ISC BIND 8.4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.4.1
  • ISC BIND 8.4.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.4.4
  • ISC BIND 8.4.5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.4.5
  • ISC BIND 8.4.7
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:8.4.7
  • ISC BIND 9.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.0
  • ISC BIND 9.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.0.1
  • ISC BIND 9.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.1
  • ISC BIND 9.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.1.1
  • ISC BIND 9.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.1.2
  • ISC BIND 9.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.1.3
  • ISC BIND 9.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2
  • ISC BIND 9.2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.0
  • ISC BIND 9.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.1
  • ISC BIND 9.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.2
  • ISC BIND 9.2.2 P3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.2:p3
  • ISC BIND 9.2.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.3
  • ISC BIND 9.2.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.4
  • ISC BIND 9.2.5
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.5
  • ISC BIND 9.2.6
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.6
  • ISC BIND 9.2.7
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.7
  • ISC BIND 9.2.9
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.2.9
  • ISC BIND 9.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3
  • ISC BIND 9.3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.0
  • ISC BIND 9.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.1
  • ISC BIND 9.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.2
  • ISC BIND 9.3.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.5-p2-w1:windows
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.3.5-p2-w1:windows
  • ISC BIND 9.4
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4
  • ISC BIND 9.4.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.0
  • ISC BIND 9.4.0rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.0:rc1
  • ISC BIND 9.4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.1
  • ISC BIND 9.4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.2
  • ISC BIND 9.4.3
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.3
  • ISC BIND 9.4.3 rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.4.3:rc1
  • ISC BIND 9.5.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.5.0
  • ISC BIND 9.5.0 rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.5.0:rc1
  • ISC BIND 9.5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.5.1
  • ISC BIND 9.5.1 rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.5.1:rc1
  • ISC BIND 9.5.1 rc2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.5.1:rc2
  • ISC BIND 9.6.0
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.6.0
  • ISC BIND 9.6.0 p1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.6.0:p1
  • ISC BIND 9.6.0 rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.6.0:rc1
  • ISC BIND 9.6.0 rc2
    cpe:2.3:a:isc:bind:9.6.0:rc2
CVSS
Base: 5.0 (as of 26-01-2009 - 11:46)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-287
CAPEC
  • Authentication Abuse
    An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation. In such an attack an authentication mechanism is functioning but a carefully controlled sequence of events causes the mechanism to grant access to the attacker. This attack may exploit assumptions made by the target's authentication procedures, such as assumptions regarding trust relationships or assumptions regarding the generation of secret values. This attack differs from Authentication Bypass attacks in that Authentication Abuse allows the attacker to be certified as a valid user through illegitimate means, while Authentication Bypass allows the user to access protected material without ever being certified as an authenticated user. This attack does not rely on prior sessions established by successfully authenticating users, as relied upon for the "Exploitation of Session Variables, Resource IDs and other Trusted Credentials" attack patterns.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client (aka Make the Client Invisible)
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by placing themselves in the communication channel between client and server such that communication directly to the server is possible where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Register Man in the Middle
    This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to place man in the middle once SSL is terminated. Rest applications premise is that they leverage existing infrastructure to deliver web services functionality. An example of this is a Rest application that uses HTTP Get methods and receives a HTTP response with an XML document. These Rest style web services are deployed on existing infrastructure such as Apache and IIS web servers with no SOAP stack required. Unfortunately from a security standpoint, there frequently is no interoperable identity security mechanism deployed, so Rest developers often fall back to SSL to deliver security. In large data centers, SSL is typically terminated at the edge of the network - at the firewall, load balancer, or router. Once the SSL is terminated the HTTP request is in the clear (unless developers have hashed or encrypted the values, but this is rare). The attacker can utilize a sniffer such as Wireshark to snapshot the credentials, such as username and password that are passed in the clear once SSL is terminated. Once the attacker gathers these credentials, they can submit requests to the web service provider just as authorized user do. There is not typically an authentication on the client side, beyond what is passed in the request itself so once this is compromised, then this is generally sufficient to compromise the service's authentication scheme.
  • Man in the Middle Attack
    This type of attack targets the communication between two components (typically client and server). The attacker places himself in the communication channel between the two components. Whenever one component attempts to communicate with the other (data flow, authentication challenges, etc.), the data first goes to the attacker, who has the opportunity to observe or alter it, and it is then passed on to the other component as if it was never intercepted. This interposition is transparent leaving the two compromised components unaware of the potential corruption or leakage of their communications. The potential for Man-in-the-Middle attacks yields an implicit lack of trust in communication or identify between two components.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK LOW NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL NONE NONE
nessus via4
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-200903-14.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-200903-14 (BIND: Incorrect signature verification) BIND does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL functions to verify DSA (CVE-2009-0025) and RSA (CVE-2009-0265) certificates. Impact : A remote attacker could bypass validation of the certificate chain to spoof DNSSEC-authenticated records. Workaround : There is no known workaround at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-11
    plugin id 35812
    published 2009-03-10
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=35812
    title GLSA-200903-14 : BIND: Incorrect signature verification
  • NASL family Mandriva Local Security Checks
    NASL id MANDRIVA_MDVSA-2009-037.NASL
    description Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) BIND 9.6.0 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL EVP_VerifyFinal function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077 and CVE-2009-0025. In this particular case the DSA_verify function was fixed with MDVSA-2009:002, this update does however address the RSA_verify function (CVE-2009-0265).
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-19
    plugin id 36346
    published 2009-04-23
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=36346
    title Mandriva Linux Security Advisory : bind (MDVSA-2009:037)
  • NASL family F5 Networks Local Security Checks
    NASL id F5_BIGIP_SOL11503.NASL
    description The remote BIG-IP device is missing a patch required by a security advisory.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-04
    plugin id 78125
    published 2014-10-10
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=78125
    title F5 Networks BIG-IP : BIND 9 vulnerability (SOL11503)
  • NASL family Slackware Local Security Checks
    NASL id SLACKWARE_SSA_2009-014-02.NASL
    description New bind packages are available for Slackware 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 11.0, 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, and -current to fix a security issue.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-18
    plugin id 54870
    published 2011-05-28
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=54870
    title Slackware 10.0 / 10.1 / 10.2 / 11.0 / 12.0 / 12.1 / 12.2 / 8.1 / 9.0 / 9.1 / current : bind (SSA:2009-014-02)
  • NASL family F5 Networks Local Security Checks
    NASL id F5_BIGIP_SOL9754.NASL
    description The remote BIG-IP device is missing a patch required by a security advisory.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-04
    plugin id 78228
    published 2014-10-10
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=78228
    title F5 Networks BIG-IP : BIND 9 vulnerability (SOL9754)
refmap via4
confirm https://www.isc.org/node/373
mandriva MDVSA-2009:037
misc http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.dns.bind/browse_thread/thread/49ef622c8329fd33
secunia 33559
slackware SSA:2009-014-02
vupen ADV-2009-0043
statements via4
contributor Joshua Bressers
lastmodified 2009-01-26
organization Red Hat
statement Not vulnerable. This issue did not affect the versions of BIND as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3, 4, or 5.
Last major update 07-03-2011 - 22:18
Published 26-01-2009 - 10:30
Last modified 30-10-2018 - 12:27
Back to Top