CVE-2017-13704
Published · Updated
15Vexday Risk Score
No sign of exploitation. No public exploitation artifact known so far.
ssvc Trackepss 65%
exploitation probability
65%top 1% of all CVEs
observed exploitation
nono source reports it
What the vendors declare (VEX)
Official vendor statements in CSAF/VEX format: whether their product is affected, already fixed, or ruled out — and why. These are the vendor's assertions, not Vexday's judgment.
Red HatVEX document ↗
Not affected
10 products (14 components) — because the vulnerable code is not present in the product
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 · Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 · Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 · Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform 6 (Juno) · Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform 7 (Kilo) · and others 5
In dnsmasq before 2.78, if the DNS packet size does not match the expected size, the size parameter in a memset call gets a negative value. As it is an unsigned value, memset ends up writing up to 0xffffffff zero's (0xffffffffffffffff in 64 bit platforms), making dnsmasq crash.
Affected products
n/a · n/aReferences
https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/3199382https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-689071.pdfhttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4TK6DWC53WSU6633EVZL7H4PCWBYHMHK/https://security.googleblog.com/2017/10/behind-masq-yet-more-dns-and-dhcp.htmlhttps://www.mail-archive.com/dnsmasq-discuss%40lists.thekelleys.org.uk/msg11664.htmlhttps://www.mail-archive.com/dnsmasq-discuss%40lists.thekelleys.org.uk/msg11665.htmlhttps://www.synology.com/support/security/Synology_SA_17_59_Dnsmasqhttp://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/CHANGELOGhttp://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=63437ffbb58837b214b4b92cb1c54bc5f3279928http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101085http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101977http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039474