CVE-2021-25216

In BIND 9.5.0 -> 9.11.29, 9.12.0 -> 9.16.13, and versions BIND 9.11.3-S1 -> 9.11.29-S1 and 9.16.8-S1 -> 9.16.13-S1 of BIND Supported Preview Edition, as well as release versions 9.17.0 -> 9.17.1 of the BIND 9.17 development branch, BIND servers are vulnerable if they are running an affected version and are configured to use GSS-TSIG features. In a configuration which uses BINDs default settings the vulnerable code path is not exposed, but a server can be rendered vulnerable by explicitly setting values for the tkey-gssapi-keytab or tkey-gssapi-credential configuration 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. For servers that meet these conditions, the ISC SPNEGO implementation is vulnerable to various attacks, depending on the CPU architecture for which BIND was built: For named binaries compiled for 64-bit platforms, this flaw can be used to trigger a buffer over-read, leading to a server crash. For named binaries compiled for 32-bit platforms, this flaw can be used to trigger a server crash due to a buffer overflow and possibly also to achieve remote code execution. We have determined that standard SPNEGO implementations are available in the MIT and Heimdal Kerberos libraries, which support a broad range of operating systems, rendering the ISC implementation unnecessary and obsolete. Therefore, to reduce the attack surface for BIND users, we will be removing the ISC SPNEGO implementation in the April releases of BIND 9.11 and 9.16 (it had already been dropped from BIND 9.17). We would not normally remove something from a stable ESV (Extended Support Version) of BIND, but since system libraries can replace the ISC SPNEGO implementation, we have made an exception in this case for reasons of stability and security.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/04/29/1
• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/04/29/2
• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/04/29/3
• http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/04/29/4
• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf
• https://kb.isc.org/v1/docs/cve-2021-25215
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2021/05/msg00001.html
• https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210521-0006/
• https://www.debian.org/security/2021/dsa-4909
• https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-21-657/