[Bug 280705] 0.0.0.0/32 is equivalent to 127.0.0.1/32, which may be considered a security flaw
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280705] 0.0.0.0/32 is equivalent to 127.0.0.1/32, which may be considered a security flaw"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280705] 0.0.0.0/32 is equivalent to 127.0.0.1/32, which may be considered a security flaw"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280705] 0.0.0.0/32 is equivalent to 127.0.0.1/32, which may be considered a security flaw"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 14:27:04 UTC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280705
Bug ID: 280705
Summary: 0.0.0.0/32 is equivalent to 127.0.0.1/32, which may be
considered a security flaw
Product: Base System
Version: CURRENT
Hardware: Any
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity: Affects Many People
Priority: ---
Component: kern
Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org
Reporter: ltning-freebsd@anduin.net
Looking at
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/872164f559d2637f8de30fcd9da46d9b43d24328/sys/netinet/in_pcb.c#L1312-L1331
and confirming by testing, any listening port, no matter which interface it is
on, will also accept connections on 0.0.0.0/32.
This has recently gained attention in the form of a "browser bug", where
network sandboxing can be evaded (and remotely-loaded javascript can talk to
any service running on the host).
The original code is from BSD4.3, and (guessing here) might be there because
someone didn't want to wait for the tape with the localhost interface code - or
was simply too lazy to type 127.0.0.1? :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.