cnvd - cnvd-2017-00860

cnvd-2017-00860

Vulnerability from cnvd

Title: IETF IPv6 Protocol拒绝服务漏洞

Description:

IPv6是InternetProtocolVersion6的缩写，也被称作下一代互联网协议，它是由IETF设计的用来替代现行的IPv4协议的一种新的IP协议。

IETF IPv6 Protocol存在拒绝服务漏洞。攻击者可利用该漏洞发起拒绝服务攻击。

Severity: 中

Patch Name: IETF IPv6 Protocol拒绝服务漏洞的补丁

Patch Description:

IPv6是InternetProtocolVersion6的缩写，也被称作下一代互联网协议，它是由IETF设计的用来替代现行的IPv4协议的一种新的IP协议。

IETF IPv6 Protocol存在拒绝服务漏洞。攻击者可利用该漏洞发起拒绝服务攻击。目前，供应商发布了安全公告及相关补丁信息，修复了此漏洞。

Formal description:

用户可联系供应商获得补丁信息： http://ietf.org/

Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021

Impacted products

Name
IETF IPv6

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "bids": {
    "bid": {
      "bidNumber": "95797"
    }
  },
  "cves": {
    "cve": {
      "cveNumber": "CVE-2016-10142"
    }
  },
  "description": "IPv6\u662fInternetProtocolVersion6\u7684\u7f29\u5199\uff0c\u4e5f\u88ab\u79f0\u4f5c\u4e0b\u4e00\u4ee3\u4e92\u8054\u7f51\u534f\u8bae\uff0c\u5b83\u662f\u7531IETF\u8bbe\u8ba1\u7684\u7528\u6765\u66ff\u4ee3\u73b0\u884c\u7684IPv4\u534f\u8bae\u7684\u4e00\u79cd\u65b0\u7684IP\u534f\u8bae\u3002\r\n\r\nIETF IPv6 Protocol\u5b58\u5728\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u6f0f\u6d1e\u3002\u653b\u51fb\u8005\u53ef\u5229\u7528\u8be5\u6f0f\u6d1e\u53d1\u8d77\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u653b\u51fb\u3002",
  "discovererName": "IETF",
  "formalWay": "\u7528\u6237\u53ef\u8054\u7cfb\u4f9b\u5e94\u5546\u83b7\u5f97\u8865\u4e01\u4fe1\u606f\uff1a\r\nhttp://ietf.org/",
  "isEvent": "\u901a\u7528\u8f6f\u786c\u4ef6\u6f0f\u6d1e",
  "number": "CNVD-2017-00860",
  "openTime": "2017-02-04",
  "patchDescription": "IPv6\u662fInternetProtocolVersion6\u7684\u7f29\u5199\uff0c\u4e5f\u88ab\u79f0\u4f5c\u4e0b\u4e00\u4ee3\u4e92\u8054\u7f51\u534f\u8bae\uff0c\u5b83\u662f\u7531IETF\u8bbe\u8ba1\u7684\u7528\u6765\u66ff\u4ee3\u73b0\u884c\u7684IPv4\u534f\u8bae\u7684\u4e00\u79cd\u65b0\u7684IP\u534f\u8bae\u3002\r\n\r\nIETF IPv6 Protocol\u5b58\u5728\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u6f0f\u6d1e\u3002\u653b\u51fb\u8005\u53ef\u5229\u7528\u8be5\u6f0f\u6d1e\u53d1\u8d77\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u653b\u51fb\u3002\u76ee\u524d\uff0c\u4f9b\u5e94\u5546\u53d1\u5e03\u4e86\u5b89\u5168\u516c\u544a\u53ca\u76f8\u5173\u8865\u4e01\u4fe1\u606f\uff0c\u4fee\u590d\u4e86\u6b64\u6f0f\u6d1e\u3002",
  "patchName": "IETF IPv6 Protocol\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u6f0f\u6d1e\u7684\u8865\u4e01",
  "products": {
    "product": "IETF IPv6"
  },
  "referenceLink": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021",
  "serverity": "\u4e2d",
  "submitTime": "2017-01-18",
  "title": "IETF IPv6 Protocol\u62d2\u7edd\u670d\u52a1\u6f0f\u6d1e"
}

CVE-2016-10142 (GCVE-0-2016-10142)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5

Published

2017-01-14 06:56

Modified

2024-08-06 03:14

Severity ?

CWE

Summary

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.

References

▼	URL	Tags
	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08	x_refsource_MISC
	https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021	x_refsource_MISC
	http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797	vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
	https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730	x_refsource_CONFIRM
	http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html	vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
	http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256	vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
	https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support&amp%3Butm_medium=RSS	x_refsource_CONFIRM

Impacted products

	Vendor	Product	Version
	n/a	n/a	Version: n/a

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-06T03:14:42.262Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
          },
          {
            "name": "95797",
            "tags": [
              "vdb-entry",
              "x_refsource_BID",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
          },
          {
            "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
            "tags": [
              "vendor-advisory",
              "x_refsource_REDHAT",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
          },
          {
            "name": "1038256",
            "tags": [
              "vdb-entry",
              "x_refsource_SECTRACK",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2017-01-14T00:00:00",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic."
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2019-10-09T19:06:21",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
        },
        {
          "name": "95797",
          "tags": [
            "vdb-entry",
            "x_refsource_BID"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
        },
        {
          "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory",
            "x_refsource_REDHAT"
          ],
          "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
        },
        {
          "name": "1038256",
          "tags": [
            "vdb-entry",
            "x_refsource_SECTRACK"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
        }
      ],
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2016-10142",
          "STATE": "PUBLIC"
        },
        "affects": {
          "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
              {
                "product": {
                  "product_data": [
                    {
                      "product_name": "n/a",
                      "version": {
                        "version_data": [
                          {
                            "version_value": "n/a"
                          }
                        ]
                      }
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "vendor_name": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "eng",
              "value": "An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "n/a"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
            },
            {
              "name": "95797",
              "refsource": "BID",
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
            },
            {
              "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
              "refsource": "REDHAT",
              "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "1038256",
              "refsource": "SECTRACK",
              "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
            }
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2016-10142",
    "datePublished": "2017-01-14T06:56:00",
    "dateReserved": "2017-01-14T00:00:00",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-08-06T03:14:42.262Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}

Sightings

Author	Source	Type	Date

Nomenclature

Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.

Action not permitted