{"containers": {"cna": {"affected": [{"product": "Protocol", "vendor": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)", "versions": [{"status": "unknown", "version": "N/A"}]}], "datePublic": "2017-07-27T00:00:00", "descriptions": [{"lang": "en", "value": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine Link State Advertisement (LSA) recency for LSAs with MaxSequenceNumber. According to RFC 2328 section 13.1, for two instances of the same LSA, recency is determined by first comparing sequence numbers, then checksums, and finally MaxAge. In a case where the sequence numbers are the same, the LSA with the larger checksum is considered more recent, and will not be flushed from the Link State Database (LSDB). Since the RFC does not explicitly state that the values of links carried by a LSA must be the same when prematurely aging a self-originating LSA with MaxSequenceNumber, it is possible in vulnerable OSPF implementations for an attacker to craft a LSA with MaxSequenceNumber and invalid links that will result in a larger checksum and thus a 'newer' LSA that will not be flushed from the LSDB. Propagation of the crafted LSA can result in the erasure or alteration of the routing tables of routers within the routing domain, creating a denial of service condition or the re-routing of traffic on the network. CVE-2017-3224 has been reserved for Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages)."}], "problemTypes": [{"descriptions": [{"cweId": "CWE-354", "description": "CWE-354", "lang": "en", "type": "CWE"}]}], "providerMetadata": {"dateUpdated": "2018-07-24T14:57:01", "orgId": "37e5125f-f79b-445b-8fad-9564f167944b", "shortName": "certcc"}, "references": [{"name": "VU#793496", "tags": ["third-party-advisory", "x_refsource_CERT-VN"], "url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496"}], "source": {"discovery": "UNKNOWN"}, "title": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine LSA recency in affected Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages)", "x_legacyV4Record": {"CVE_data_meta": {"ASSIGNER": "[email protected]", "ID": "CVE-2017-3224", "STATE": "PUBLIC", "TITLE": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine LSA recency in affected Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages)"}, "affects": {"vendor": {"vendor_data": [{"product": {"product_data": [{"product_name": "Protocol", "version": {"version_data": [{"affected": "?", "version_affected": "?", "version_value": "N/A"}]}}]}, "vendor_name": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)"}]}}, "data_format": "MITRE", "data_type": "CVE", "data_version": "4.0", "description": {"description_data": [{"lang": "eng", "value": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine Link State Advertisement (LSA) recency for LSAs with MaxSequenceNumber. According to RFC 2328 section 13.1, for two instances of the same LSA, recency is determined by first comparing sequence numbers, then checksums, and finally MaxAge. In a case where the sequence numbers are the same, the LSA with the larger checksum is considered more recent, and will not be flushed from the Link State Database (LSDB). Since the RFC does not explicitly state that the values of links carried by a LSA must be the same when prematurely aging a self-originating LSA with MaxSequenceNumber, it is possible in vulnerable OSPF implementations for an attacker to craft a LSA with MaxSequenceNumber and invalid links that will result in a larger checksum and thus a 'newer' LSA that will not be flushed from the LSDB. Propagation of the crafted LSA can result in the erasure or alteration of the routing tables of routers within the routing domain, creating a denial of service condition or the re-routing of traffic on the network. CVE-2017-3224 has been reserved for Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages)."}]}, "problemtype": {"problemtype_data": [{"description": [{"lang": "eng", "value": "CWE-354"}]}]}, "references": {"reference_data": [{"name": "VU#793496", "refsource": "CERT-VN", "url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496"}]}, "source": {"discovery": "UNKNOWN"}}}, "adp": [{"providerMetadata": {"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", "shortName": "CVE", "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T14:16:28.299Z"}, "title": "CVE Program Container", "references": [{"name": "VU#793496", "tags": ["third-party-advisory", "x_refsource_CERT-VN", "x_transferred"], "url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496"}]}]}, "cveMetadata": {"assignerOrgId": "37e5125f-f79b-445b-8fad-9564f167944b", "assignerShortName": "certcc", "cveId": "CVE-2017-3224", "datePublished": "2018-07-24T15:00:00", "dateReserved": "2016-12-05T00:00:00", "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T14:16:28.299Z", "state": "PUBLISHED"}, "dataType": "CVE_RECORD", "dataVersion": "5.1"}

{}

{"configurations": [{"nodes": [{"cpeMatch": [{"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:quagga:quagga:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "C94C24FF-068A-4944-863B-9E936DD6DE32", "vulnerable": true}], "negate": false, "operator": "OR"}]}, {"nodes": [{"cpeMatch": [{"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:suse:opensuse:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "12E45392-D24F-46FC-8DBC-456D2D6EDDB0", "vulnerable": true}, {"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:suse:suse_linux:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "1FB65EF0-0E6A-4178-8564-3CC96891A072", "vulnerable": true}], "negate": false, "operator": "OR"}]}, {"nodes": [{"cpeMatch": [{"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:redhat:package_manager:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "B8B51A2D-AD64-4F47-A148-0565B6A1974D", "vulnerable": true}], "negate": false, "operator": "OR"}]}], "descriptions": [{"lang": "en", "value": "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine Link State Advertisement (LSA) recency for LSAs with MaxSequenceNumber. According to RFC 2328 section 13.1, for two instances of the same LSA, recency is determined by first comparing sequence numbers, then checksums, and finally MaxAge. In a case where the sequence numbers are the same, the LSA with the larger checksum is considered more recent, and will not be flushed from the Link State Database (LSDB). Since the RFC does not explicitly state that the values of links carried by a LSA must be the same when prematurely aging a self-originating LSA with MaxSequenceNumber, it is possible in vulnerable OSPF implementations for an attacker to craft a LSA with MaxSequenceNumber and invalid links that will result in a larger checksum and thus a 'newer' LSA that will not be flushed from the LSDB. Propagation of the crafted LSA can result in the erasure or alteration of the routing tables of routers within the routing domain, creating a denial of service condition or the re-routing of traffic on the network. CVE-2017-3224 has been reserved for Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages)."}, {"lang": "es", "value": "Las implementaciones del protocolo Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) podr\u00edan determinar el recency Link State Advertisement (LSA) para los LSA con MaxSequenceNumber. Seg\u00fan la secci\u00f3n 13.1 de RFC 2328, para dos instancias del mismo LSA, el recency se determina comparando, en primer lugar, los n\u00fameros de secuencia, las sumas de verificaci\u00f3n y, finalmente, MaxAge. En el caso en el que los n\u00fameros de secuencia son los mismos, el LSA con la suma de verificaci\u00f3n m\u00e1s grande se considera m\u00e1s reciente y no ser\u00e1 vaciado del LSDB (Link State Database). Debido a que el RFC no indica expl\u00edcitamente que los valores de los enlaces conducidos por un LSA deben ser los mismos cuando un LSA autogenerado se caduca prematuramente con MaxSequenceNumber, en las implementaciones OSPF vulnerables es posible que un atacante manipule un LSA con MaxSequenceNumber y enlaces inv\u00e1lidos que resultar\u00e1n en una suma de verificaci\u00f3n m\u00e1s grande y, por lo tanto, no se vaciar\u00e1 un LSA \"m\u00e1s nuevo\" desde el LSDB. La propagaci\u00f3n del LSA manipulado puede resultar en la eliminaci\u00f3n o alteraci\u00f3n de las tablas de enrutamiento en el dominio de enrutamiento, lo que crea una condici\u00f3n de denegaci\u00f3n de servicio (DoS) o el reenrutamiento de tr\u00e1fico en la red. CVE-2017-3224 ha sido reservado para Quagga y las implementaciones descendientes (paquetes SUSE, openSUSE y Red Hat)."}], "id": "CVE-2017-3224", "lastModified": "2024-11-21T03:25:04.350", "metrics": {"cvssMetricV2": [{"acInsufInfo": false, "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM", "cvssData": {"accessComplexity": "MEDIUM", "accessVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 4.3, "confidentialityImpact": "NONE", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "vectorString": "AV:A/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0"}, "exploitabilityScore": 5.5, "impactScore": 4.9, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false, "source": "[email protected]", "type": "Primary", "userInteractionRequired": false}], "cvssMetricV30": [{"cvssData": {"attackComplexity": "HIGH", "attackVector": "ADJACENT_NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 8.2, "baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "LOW", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "scope": "CHANGED", "userInteraction": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.0"}, "exploitabilityScore": 1.6, "impactScore": 6.0, "source": "[email protected]", "type": "Primary"}]}, "published": "2018-07-24T15:29:00.890", "references": [{"source": "[email protected]", "tags": ["Third Party Advisory", "US Government Resource"], "url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496"}, {"source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", "tags": ["Third Party Advisory", "US Government Resource"], "url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496"}], "sourceIdentifier": "[email protected]", "vulnStatus": "Modified", "weaknesses": [{"description": [{"lang": "en", "value": "CWE-354"}], "source": "[email protected]", "type": "Secondary"}, {"description": [{"lang": "en", "value": "CWE-345"}], "source": "[email protected]", "type": "Primary"}]}

{"acknowledgement": "Red Hat would like to thank CERT for reporting this issue. Upstream acknowledges Adi Sosnovich, Gabi Nakibly, and Orna Grumberg as the original reporters.", "bugzilla": {"description": "quagga: OSPF implementation improperly determines LSA recency (VU#793496)", "id": "1472873", "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472873"}, "csaw": false, "cvss3": {"cvss3_base_score": "5.3", "cvss3_scoring_vector": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", "status": "draft"}, "cwe": "CWE-354", "details": ["Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol implementations may improperly determine Link State Advertisement (LSA) recency for LSAs with MaxSequenceNumber. According to RFC 2328 section 13.1, for two instances of the same LSA, recency is determined by first comparing sequence numbers, then checksums, and finally MaxAge. In a case where the sequence numbers are the same, the LSA with the larger checksum is considered more recent, and will not be flushed from the Link State Database (LSDB). Since the RFC does not explicitly state that the values of links carried by a LSA must be the same when prematurely aging a self-originating LSA with MaxSequenceNumber, it is possible in vulnerable OSPF implementations for an attacker to craft a LSA with MaxSequenceNumber and invalid links that will result in a larger checksum and thus a 'newer' LSA that will not be flushed from the LSDB. Propagation of the crafted LSA can result in the erasure or alteration of the routing tables of routers within the routing domain, creating a denial of service condition or the re-routing of traffic on the network. CVE-2017-3224 has been reserved for Quagga and downstream implementations (SUSE, openSUSE, and Red Hat packages).", "A vulnerability was discovered in several OSPF implementations, including Quagga. A malicious OSPF peer, or an attacker able to spoof messages from an OSPF peer, could send a crafted message that would result in erasure or alteration of the routing table, resulting in denial of service or incorrect routing of traffic."], "mitigation": {"lang": "en:us", "value": "It is strongly recommended to configure Quagga to require authentication from OSPF peers (eg `ip ospf authentication message-digest `). Message digest authentication effectively prevents even a man-in-the-middle attacker from exploiting this vulnerability or otherwise interfering with the routing table, as any message without a proper cryptographic signature will be rejected."}, "name": "CVE-2017-3224", "package_state": [{"cpe": "cpe:/o:redhat:enterprise_linux:5", "fix_state": "Will not fix", "package_name": "quagga", "product_name": "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5"}, {"cpe": "cpe:/o:redhat:enterprise_linux:6", "fix_state": "Will not fix", "package_name": "quagga", "product_name": "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6"}, {"cpe": "cpe:/o:redhat:enterprise_linux:7", "fix_state": "Will not fix", "package_name": "quagga", "product_name": "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7"}], "public_date": "2017-07-27T00:00:00Z", "references": ["https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2017-3224\nhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-3224\nhttps://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/793496\nhttps://www.quagga.net/docs/quagga.html#ip-ospf-authentication-message_002ddigest"], "statement": "For an attacker to exploit this vulnerability, they would either need to control an OSPF peer or spoof a message into the routing domain that appears to come from an OSPF peer. The OSPF trust model is not considered robust against malicious or compromised peers influencing the routing table. Message spoofing is effectively prevented by requiring authentication.\nRed Hat Product Security has rated this issue as having Moderate security impact. This issue is not currently planned to be addressed in future updates. For additional information, refer to the Issue Severity Classification: https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/.", "threat_severity": "Moderate"}