Search
Search Results (7 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-53499 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort-validator | 2026-08-21 | N/A |
| FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with --http.enabled=false while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45239 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort-validator | 2025-11-03 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) an ROA or a Manifest containing a null eContent field. Fort dereferences the pointer without sanitizing it first. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a crash can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45237 | 2 Fort Validator Project, Nicmx | 2 Fort Validator, Fort-validator | 2025-11-03 | 9.8 Critical |
| An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) a resource certificate containing a Key Usage extension composed of more than two bytes of data. Fort writes this string into a 2-byte buffer without properly sanitizing its length, leading to a buffer overflow. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45236 | 2 Fort Validator Project, Nicmx | 2 Fort Validator, Fort-validator | 2025-11-03 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) a signed object containing an empty signedAttributes field. Fort accesses the set's elements without sanitizing it first. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a crash can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45234 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort-validator | 2025-11-03 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) an ROA or a Manifest containing a signedAttrs encoded in non-canonical form. This bypasses Fort's BER decoder, reaching a point in the code that panics when faced with data not encoded in DER. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a panic can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing. | ||||
| CVE-2024-56375 | 1 Nicmx | 2 Fort-validator, Fort Validator | 2025-04-22 | 7.5 High |
| An integer underflow was discovered in Fort 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 before 1.6.5. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) a Manifest RPKI object containing an empty fileList. Fort dereferences (and, shortly afterwards, writes to) this array during a shuffle attempt, before the validation that would normally reject it when empty. This out-of-bounds access is caused by an integer underflow that causes the surrounding loop to iterate infinitely. Because the product is permanently stuck attempting to overshuffle an array that doesn't actually exist, a crash is nearly guaranteed. | ||||
| CVE-2024-56170 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort-validator | 2025-04-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation. | ||||
Page 1 of 1.