ghsa-4rm5-v8f4-mx8v
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-17 03:07
Modified
2022-05-17 03:07
Details

The internal DNS server in Samba 4.x before 4.0.18 does not check the QR field in the header section of an incoming DNS message before sending a response, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and bandwidth consumption) via a forged response packet that triggers a communication loop, a related issue to CVE-1999-0103.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2014-0239"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2014-05-28T04:58:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The internal DNS server in Samba 4.x before 4.0.18 does not check the QR field in the header section of an incoming DNS message before sending a response, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and bandwidth consumption) via a forged response packet that triggers a communication loop, a related issue to CVE-1999-0103.",
  "id": "GHSA-4rm5-v8f4-mx8v",
  "modified": "2022-05-17T03:07:05Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T03:07:05Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-0239"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/59579"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://security.gentoo.org/glsa/glsa-201502-15.xml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2014-0239"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/67691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1030309"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.