Thekelleys ≫ Dnsmasq

dnsmasq 2.9 is vulnerable to Integer Overflow via forward_query.

Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. One of the concerns is that,...

An issue was discovered in Dnsmasq before 2.90. The default maximum EDNS.0 UDP packet size was set to 4096 but should be 1232 because of DNS Flag Day 2020.

A single-byte, non-arbitrary write/use-after-free flaw was found in dnsmasq. This flaw allows an attacker who sends a crafted packet processed by dnsmasq, potentially causing a denial of service.

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in extract_name (called from hash_questions and fuzz_util.c). NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through CVE-2021-45957 "do not represent real vulnerabilities, to the best of our knowledge...

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in check_bad_address (called from check_for_bogus_wildcard and FuzzCheckForBogusWildcard). NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through CVE-2021-45957 "do not represent real vulnerabilities,...

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in dhcp_reply (called from dhcp_packet and FuzzDhcp). NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through CVE-2021-45957 "do not represent real vulnerabilities, to the best of our knowledge.

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in extract_name (called from answer_auth and FuzzAuth). NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through CVE-2021-45957 "do not represent real vulnerabilities, to the best of our knowledge.

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in resize_packet (called from FuzzResizePacket and fuzz_rfc1035.c) because of the lack of a proper bounds check upon pseudo header re-insertion. NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through ...

Dnsmasq 2.86 has a heap-based buffer overflow in print_mac (called from log_packet and dhcp_reply). NOTE: the vendor's position is that CVE-2021-45951 through CVE-2021-45957 "do not represent real vulnerabilities, to the best of our knowledge.