Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A TSIG noncompliance with RFC 2845 #163

Closed
zhouzoe opened this issue Mar 11, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

A TSIG noncompliance with RFC 2845 #163

zhouzoe opened this issue Mar 11, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@zhouzoe
Copy link

zhouzoe commented Mar 11, 2021

  • program: nsd

  • issue type: bug report

  • Description
    When nsd suth server receives a query TSIG and OPT RR, and the TSIG RR is not the last record in the additional section, the server return a response RCODE 9(NOTAUTH) or RCODE 0(with much information) instead of RCODE 1(FORMATERR).
    This is a noncompliance with RFC2845, as which says:

If an incoming message contains a TSIG record, it MUST be the last record in the additional section. Multiple TSIG records are not allowed. If a TSIG record is present in any other position, the packet is dropped and a response with RCODE
1 (FORMERR) MUST be returned.

  • Environment
    operating system : ubuntu 18.04
    software version: NSD_4_3_4_RC1

  • Expected response
    a response with RCODE 1 (FORMATERR).

  • Actual response
    a response with RCODE 9 or RCODE 1.

@zhouzoe zhouzoe closed this as completed Mar 11, 2021
@zhouzoe zhouzoe reopened this Mar 11, 2021
@zhouzoe zhouzoe changed the title Auth: A TSIG noncompliance with RFC 2845 A TSIG noncompliance with RFC 2845 Mar 11, 2021
@wcawijngaards
Copy link
Member

The commit removes the backwards compatibility section where a TSIG before EDNS OPT was allowed by the code. This makes the code return FORMERR for TSIG before EDNS OPT in the additional section. This is also what RFC6891 and RFC8945 say should happen for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants