CVE-2017-3224
Description
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.
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.
Red 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/.
Mitigation
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.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 5.3 | 8.2 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Adjacent Network | Adjacent Network | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | High | High | N/A |
| Privileges Required | None | None | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Changed | N/A |
| Confidentiality | None | Low | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | High | N/A |
| Availability Impact | High | High | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
NVD: CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity,Other
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data; Other
Integrity checks usually use a secret key that helps authenticate the data origin. Skipping integrity checking generally opens up the possibility that new data from an invalid source can be injected.
Integrity,Other
Technical Impact: Other
Data that is parsed and used may be corrupted.
Non-Repudiation,Other
Technical Impact: Hide Activities; Other
Without a checksum check, it is impossible to determine if any changes have been made to the data after it was sent.
Acknowledgements
Red Hat would like to thank CERT for reporting this issue. Upstream acknowledges Adi Sosnovich, Gabi Nakibly, and Orna Grumberg as the original reporters.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
