CVE-2018-17187

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The CVE Program describes this issue as:

The Apache Qpid Proton-J transport includes an optional wrapper layer to perform TLS, enabled by use of the 'transport.ssl(...)' methods. Unless a verification mode was explicitly configured, client and server modes previously defaulted as documented to not verifying a peer certificate, with options to configure this explicitly or select a certificate verification mode with or without hostname verification being performed. The latter hostname verifying mode was not implemented in Apache Qpid Proton-J versions 0.3 to 0.29.0, with attempts to use it resulting in an exception. This left only the option to verify the certificate is trusted, leaving such a client vulnerable to Man In The Middle (MITM) attack. Uses of the Proton-J protocol engine which do not utilise the optional transport TLS wrapper are not impacted, e.g. usage within Qpid JMS. Uses of Proton-J utilising the optional transport TLS wrapper layer that wish to enable hostname verification must be upgraded to version 0.30.0 or later and utilise the VerifyMode#VERIFY_PEER_NAME configuration, which is now the default for client mode usage unless configured otherwise.

Statement

This flaw is present in qpid-proton-java packages in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Messaging, however the vulnerable TLS transport functionality is not used by any components of MRG Messaging so the vulnerability is not exposed. For MRG Messaging, this vulnerability has been given an impact rating of Low, and is not planned to be fixed at this time.

This flaw is present in qpid-proton-java packages in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Messaging, however the vulnerable TLS transport functionality is not used by any components of MRG Messaging so the vulnerability is not exposed. For MRG Messaging, this vulnerability has been given an impact rating of Low, and is not planned to be fixed at this time.

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 1651837: qpid-proton-java: Hostname verification mode not implemented in transport TLS wrapper
  • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2018-17187

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

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 HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

6.8

7.4

Attack Vector

Network

Network

Attack Complexity

High

High

Privileges Required

None

None

User Interaction

Required

None

Scope

Unchanged

Unchanged

Confidentiality Impact

High

High

Integrity Impact

High

High

Availability Impact

None

None

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

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

Understanding the Weakness (CWE)

CWE-295

Integrity,Authentication

Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

What is a mitigation?

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.