Skip to content

Vulnerability in trust-dns and trust-dns-server #1703

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2023
Merged

Vulnerability in trust-dns and trust-dns-server #1703

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2023

Conversation

jonasbb
Copy link
Contributor

@jonasbb jonasbb commented Jun 3, 2023

An attacker can form packet loops between vulnerable instances, leading to a denial-of-service for both network and CPU resources.

My supervisor (@crossow) and I found and reported the issue. @bluejekyll and @djc have acknowledged and resolved the issue.

Questions:

  1. The same advisory should apply to both trust-dns and trust-dns-server. Is there a way to have a single advisory (i.e., single identifier) target multiple crates?
  2. Affected is the type trust_dns_server::server::ServerFuture, not a specific public function. It seems that cannot be encoded via [affected].

An attacker can form packet loops between vulnerable instances leading
to a denial-of-service for both network and CPU resources.
@Shnatsel
Copy link
Member

Shnatsel commented Jun 3, 2023

Thank you!

On 1: There is currently no way to make a single advisory affect two different crates. If both crates contain vulnerable code, then there should be two advisories. It's fine if they contain the same text.

On 2: That is indeed correct, so [affected] is not applicable here.

@Shnatsel Shnatsel merged commit a14884e into rustsec:main Jun 3, 2023
@jonasbb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jonasbb commented Jun 3, 2023

Ok, thanks. Then I will submit a second PR for trust-dns. Could you maybe check if and how aliases should be used here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants