Lucene search

K
cve[email protected]CVE-2016-10142
HistoryJan 14, 2017 - 7:59 a.m.

CVE-2016-10142

2017-01-1407:59:00
CWE-17
web.nvd.nist.gov
137
cve-2016-10142
ipv6
icmp
packet too big
rfc6274
rfc7739
rfc6946
rfc7872
dos
bgp
security
vulnerability

5 Medium

CVSS2

Attack Vector

NETWORK

Attack Complexity

LOW

Authentication

NONE

Confidentiality Impact

NONE

Integrity Impact

NONE

Availability Impact

PARTIAL

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P

8.6 High

CVSS3

Attack Vector

NETWORK

Attack Complexity

LOW

Privileges Required

NONE

User Interaction

NONE

Scope

CHANGED

Confidentiality Impact

NONE

Integrity Impact

NONE

Availability Impact

HIGH

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H

7.3 High

AI Score

Confidence

High

0.006 Low

EPSS

Percentile

79.5%

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.

Affected configurations

NVD
Node
ietfipv6Match-
CPENameOperatorVersion
ietf:ipv6ietf ipv6eq-

5 Medium

CVSS2

Attack Vector

NETWORK

Attack Complexity

LOW

Authentication

NONE

Confidentiality Impact

NONE

Integrity Impact

NONE

Availability Impact

PARTIAL

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P

8.6 High

CVSS3

Attack Vector

NETWORK

Attack Complexity

LOW

Privileges Required

NONE

User Interaction

NONE

Scope

CHANGED

Confidentiality Impact

NONE

Integrity Impact

NONE

Availability Impact

HIGH

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H

7.3 High

AI Score

Confidence

High

0.006 Low

EPSS

Percentile

79.5%