ietf CVEs · High

CVE	Severity	Published▾	Status	Exploitation	Description
CVE-2023-44487	High	2023-10-10	Mitigation candidate	Exploited	The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.
CVE-2016-10142	High	2017-01-14	Not applicable	No public exploit	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.
CVE-2015-8960	High	2016-09-21	Outside Waratek scope	No public exploit	The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier supports the rsa_fixed_dh, dss_fixed_dh, rsa_fixed_ecdh, and ecdsa_fixed_ecdh values for ClientCertificateType but does not directly document the ability to compute the master secret in certain situations with a client secret key and server public key but not a server secret key, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof TLS servers by leveraging knowledge of the secret key for an arbitrary installed client X.509 certificate, aka the "Key Compromise Impersonation (KCI)" issue.
CVE-2007-2242	High	2007-04-25	Not applicable	No public exploit	The IPv6 protocol allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted IPv6 type 0 route headers (IPV6_RTHDR_TYPE_0) that create network amplification between two routers.

CVE

Severity

Published▾

Status

Exploitation

Description

CVE-2023-44487

High

2023-10-10

Mitigation candidate

Exploited

The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.

CVE-2016-10142

High

2017-01-14

Not applicable

No public exploit

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.

CVE-2015-8960

High

2016-09-21

Outside Waratek scope

No public exploit

The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier supports the rsa_fixed_dh, dss_fixed_dh, rsa_fixed_ecdh, and ecdsa_fixed_ecdh values for ClientCertificateType but does not directly document the ability to compute the master secret in certain situations with a client secret key and server public key but not a server secret key, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof TLS servers by leveraging knowledge of the secret key for an arbitrary installed client X.509 certificate, aka the "Key Compromise Impersonation (KCI)" issue.

CVE-2007-2242

High

2007-04-25

Not applicable

No public exploit

The IPv6 protocol allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted IPv6 type 0 route headers (IPV6_RTHDR_TYPE_0) that create network amplification between two routers.