CVE-2024-56169 (GCVE-0-2024-56169)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-12-18 00:00
Modified
2025-02-10 22:14
Severity ?
5.3 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CWE
  • n/a
Summary
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.
References
cve@mitre.orghttps://github.com/NICMx/FORT-validator/issues/82Issue Tracking, Vendor Advisory
cve@mitre.orghttps://nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.htmlVendor Advisory
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
n/a n/a Version: n/a
Show details on NVD website

To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
              "baseScore": 5.3,
              "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
              "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
              "integrityImpact": "LOW",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2024-56169",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2024-12-20T21:00:37.246235Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "problemTypes": [
          {
            "descriptions": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-354",
                "description": "CWE-354 Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value",
                "lang": "en",
                "type": "CWE"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2025-02-10T22:14:44.765Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data."
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2024-12-18T04:31:28.956Z",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.html"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/NICMx/FORT-validator/issues/82"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2024-56169",
    "datePublished": "2024-12-18T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateReserved": "2024-12-18T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2025-02-10T22:14:44.765Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2024-56169\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"cve@mitre.org\",\"published\":\"2024-12-18T05:15:08.853\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-04-22T16:24:31.770\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Analyzed\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"Se descubri\u00f3 un problema de integridad de validaci\u00f3n en Fort hasta la versi\u00f3n 1.6.4 anterior a la versi\u00f3n 2.0.0. Se supone que las partes que conf\u00edan en RPKI (como Fort) mantienen una cach\u00e9 de respaldo de los datos RPKI remotos. Esto se puede utilizar como una alternativa en caso de que una nueva b\u00fasqueda falle o genere archivos incorrectos. Sin embargo, el producto actualmente utiliza su cach\u00e9 simplemente como una herramienta de ahorro de ancho de banda (porque la b\u00fasqueda se realiza mediante deltas). Si una b\u00fasqueda falla a mitad de camino o genera archivos incorrectos, no hay una alternativa viable. Esto genera datos de validaci\u00f3n de origen de ruta incompletos.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N\",\"baseScore\":5.3,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"integrityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"NONE\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.9,\"impactScore\":1.4}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-354\"}]}],\"configurations\":[{\"nodes\":[{\"operator\":\"OR\",\"negate\":false,\"cpeMatch\":[{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:nicmx:fort_validator:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionEndIncluding\":\"1.6.6\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"DDE7A5D0-5B5E-4AE8-8A53-DC56021F314A\"}]}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/NICMx/FORT-validator/issues/82\",\"source\":\"cve@mitre.org\",\"tags\":[\"Issue Tracking\",\"Vendor Advisory\"]},{\"url\":\"https://nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.html\",\"source\":\"cve@mitre.org\",\"tags\":[\"Vendor Advisory\"]}]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 5.3, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N\", \"integrityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2024-56169\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2024-12-20T21:00:37.246235Z\"}}}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-354\", \"description\": \"CWE-354 Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-20T21:02:27.132Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"n/a\", \"product\": \"n/a\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"n/a\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://nicmx.github.io/FORT-validator/CVE.html\"}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/NICMx/FORT-validator/issues/82\"}], \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"text\", \"description\": \"n/a\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca\", \"shortName\": \"mitre\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-18T04:31:28.956Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2024-56169\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-02-10T22:14:44.765Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2024-12-18T00:00:00.000Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca\", \"datePublished\": \"2024-12-18T00:00:00.000Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"mitre\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.1"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.