exploit the possibilities
Home Files News &[SERVICES_TAB]About Contact Add New
Showing 1 - 1 of 1 RSS Feed

CVE-2016-10142

Status Candidate

Overview

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.

Related Files

Red Hat Security Advisory 2017-0817-01
Posted Mar 21, 2017
Authored by Red Hat | Site access.redhat.com

Red Hat Security Advisory 2017-0817-01 - The kernel packages contain the Linux kernel, the core of any Linux operating system. Security Fix: It was discovered that a remote attacker could leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow and could subsequently perform any type of a fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement RFC6946.

tags | advisory, remote, arbitrary, kernel
systems | linux, redhat
advisories | CVE-2016-10088, CVE-2016-10142, CVE-2016-2069, CVE-2016-2384, CVE-2016-6480, CVE-2016-7042, CVE-2016-7097, CVE-2016-8399, CVE-2016-9576
SHA-256 | 597c633d164dd5b659055724a7f94dfa6104bd1ddf58babc8fd4e61d37290908
Page 1 of 1
Back1Next

File Archive:

July 2024

  • Su
  • Mo
  • Tu
  • We
  • Th
  • Fr
  • Sa
  • 1
    Jul 1st
    27 Files
  • 2
    Jul 2nd
    10 Files
  • 3
    Jul 3rd
    35 Files
  • 4
    Jul 4th
    27 Files
  • 5
    Jul 5th
    18 Files
  • 6
    Jul 6th
    0 Files
  • 7
    Jul 7th
    0 Files
  • 8
    Jul 8th
    28 Files
  • 9
    Jul 9th
    0 Files
  • 10
    Jul 10th
    0 Files
  • 11
    Jul 11th
    0 Files
  • 12
    Jul 12th
    0 Files
  • 13
    Jul 13th
    0 Files
  • 14
    Jul 14th
    0 Files
  • 15
    Jul 15th
    0 Files
  • 16
    Jul 16th
    0 Files
  • 17
    Jul 17th
    0 Files
  • 18
    Jul 18th
    0 Files
  • 19
    Jul 19th
    0 Files
  • 20
    Jul 20th
    0 Files
  • 21
    Jul 21st
    0 Files
  • 22
    Jul 22nd
    0 Files
  • 23
    Jul 23rd
    0 Files
  • 24
    Jul 24th
    0 Files
  • 25
    Jul 25th
    0 Files
  • 26
    Jul 26th
    0 Files
  • 27
    Jul 27th
    0 Files
  • 28
    Jul 28th
    0 Files
  • 29
    Jul 29th
    0 Files
  • 30
    Jul 30th
    0 Files
  • 31
    Jul 31st
    0 Files

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2022 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

Services
Security Services
Hosting By
Rokasec
close