[Oisf-devel] [COMMIT] OISF branch, master, updated. suricata-2.1beta1-67-g61a9739

OISF Git noreply at openinfosecfoundation.org
Wed Sep 17 09:00:57 UTC 2014

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "OISF".

The branch, master has been updated
       via  61a9739f44e4b9ae9e4acfa629df65c6312fe47e (commit)
      from  22272f6c5b73fdeea125aec7833938e493a75618 (commit)

Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.

- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
commit 61a9739f44e4b9ae9e4acfa629df65c6312fe47e
Author: bmeeks8 <bmeeks8 at bellsouth.net>
Date:   Fri Sep 5 09:22:11 2014 -0400

    Bug fix: IPv6 addresses in negated range and IPv6 string into radix tree.
    I found three somewhat serious IPv6 address bugs within the Suricata 2.0.x source code. Two are in the source module "detect-engine-address.c", and the third is in "util-radix-tree.c".
    The first bug occurs within the function DetectAddressParse2(). When parsing an address string and a negated block is encountered (such as when parsing !$HOME_NET, for example), any corresponding IPv6 addresses were not getting added to the Group Heads in the DetectAddressList. Only IPv4 addresses were being added.
    I discovered another bug related to IPv6 address ranges in the Signature Match Address Array comparison code for IPv6 addresses. The function DetectAddressMatchIPv6() walks a signature's source or destination match address list comparing each to the current packet's corresponding address value. The match address list consists of value pairs representing a lower and upper IP address range. If the packet's address is within that range (including equal to either the lower or upper bound), then a signature match flag is returned.
    The original test of each signature match address to the packet was performed using a set of four compounded AND comparisons looking at each of the four 32-bit blocks that comprise an IPv6 address. The problem with the old comparison is that if ANY of the four 32-bit blocks failed the test, then a "no-match" was returned. This is incorrect. If one or more of the more significant 32-bit blocks met the condition, then it is a match no matter if some of the less significant 32-bit blocks did not meet the condition. Consider this example where Packet represents the packet address being checked, and Target represents the upper bound of a match address pair. We are testing if Packet is less than Target.
    Packet -- 2001:0470 : 1f07:00e2 : 1988:01f1 : d468:27ab
    Target -- 2001:0470 : 1f07:00e2 : a48c:2e52 : d121:101e
    In this example the Packet's address is less than the target and it should give a match. However, the old code would compare each 32-bit block (shown spaced out above for clarity) and logically AND the result with the next least significant block comparison. If any of the four blocks failed the comparison, that kicked out the whole address. The flaw is illustrated above. The first two blocks are 2001:0470 and 1f07:00e2 and yield TRUE; the next less significant block is 1988:01f1 and a48c:2e52, and also yields TRUE (that is, Packet is less than Target); but the last block compare is FALSE (d468:27ab is not less than d121:101e). That last block is the least significant block, though, so its FALSE determination should not invalidate a TRUE from any of the more significant blocks. However, in the previous code using the compound logical AND block, that last least significant block would invalidate the tests done with the more significant blocks.
    The other bug I found for IPv6 occurs when trying to parse and insert an IPv6 address into a Radix Tree using the function SCRadixAddKeyIPV6String(). The test for min and max values for an IPv6 CIDR mask incorrectly tests the upper limit as 32 when it should be 128 for an IPv6 address. I think this perhaps is an old copy-paste error if the IPv6 version of this function was initially copied from the corresponding IPv4 version directly above it in the code. Without this patch, the function will return null when you attempt to add an IPv6 network whose CIDR mask is larger than 32 (for example, the popular /64 mask will cause the function to return the NULL error condition).
    (amended by Victor Julien)


Summary of changes:
 src/detect-engine-address.c |  105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 src/util-radix-tree.c       |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)


More information about the Oisf-devel mailing list