I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable."
"This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014."
I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution?
--Bill
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-9295
2014-12-20 4:42 GMT+02:00 listmail listmail@entertech.com:
I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable."
"This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014."
I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution?
--Bill _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
fixed in:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-2025.html https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-2024.html
maybe it's soon in centos too..
2014-12-20 4:42 GMT+02:00 listmail listmail@entertech.com:
I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable."
"This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014."
I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution?
--Bill _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
C7 - http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-December/020850.html C6 - http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-December/020852.html C5 - http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-December/020851.html
On 20/12/14 14:04, Eero Volotinen wrote:
fixed in:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-2025.html https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-2024.html
maybe it's soon in centos too..
2014-12-20 4:42 GMT+02:00 listmail listmail@entertech.com:
I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable."
"This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014."
I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution?
--Bill _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 20.12.2014 03:42, listmail wrote:
I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable."
"This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014."
I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution?
From the description in the Red Hat advisory and this link
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/852879 it seems the buffer overflow issues can only be exploitet with specific authentication settings that are not part of the default configuration or am I interpreting this wrong?
Regards, Dennis