Protodetect enip dns 4388 v7 #6185
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
catenacyber
requested review from
jasonish,
victorjulien and
a team
as code owners
Strict length for register sessions NOP command must have options=0
Checks opcode is valid Checks additional_rr do not exceed message length Better logic for incomplete cases
Checks credentials flavor is known
catenacyber
force-pushed
the
protodetect-enip-dns-4388-v7
branch
from
27e2809
to
f355941
Compare
jasonish
reviewed
Jun 7, 2021
Comment on lines
+668
to
+676
| if header.additional_rr as usize | ||
| + header.answer_rr as usize | ||
| + header.authority_rr as usize | ||
| + header.questions as usize | ||
| > rlen | ||
| { | ||
| //not enough data for additional records | ||
| return (false, false, false); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As these are counts not sizes, its not accurate, but also won't false positive. Should the size of the header be calculated in as well? If sizeof(header) + addtional_rr +answer_rr > rlen... Might be a bit more accurate. I think we could also assume a minumum of 2 bytes per expected record being the CLASS is a u16.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, these are counts, not sizes.
And I do not count the header size.
But as each of these has at least one byte, we can do this test to exclude some cases
So, should I include the header size in this sum ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think so. Just to confirm, rlen is the size of the record. In TCP this would be the first 2 bytes, in UDP its the payload size.
So a test to make sure its greater than or equal to:
sizeof(header) + (additional_rr * 2) + (answer_rr * 2) + (authority_rr * 2) + (questions * 2)
should be safe and accurate, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think so. Just to confirm, rlen is the size of the record. In TCP this would be the first 2 bytes, in UDP its the payload size.
Exactly, you can check the callers do it right
So a test to make sure its greater than or equal to:
sizeof(header) + (additional_rr * 2) + (answer_rr * 2) + (authority_rr * 2) + (questions * 2)should be safe and accurate, right?
Ok, will do this
|
Replaced by #6195 |
catenacyber
added a commit
to catenacyber/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185
victorjulien
pushed a commit
to victorjulien/suricata
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2023
Previously, the problem was that nested headers/boundaries were not used to compute the hash Solution is to move up the call to the hash computation from ProcessMimeBody to its caller ProcessMimeEntity, and add a set of conditions to ensure that we are not in the principal headers. Ticket: OISF#6185 (cherry picked from commit a3168fd)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4388
Describe changes:
so as to avoid protocol detection confusion with TCP splitting
Modifies #6182 with
LIST_INTERFACES(found by fuzzing the fixing branch)