ghsa-cfcf-x7x2-gpf8
Vulnerability from github
Published
2021-12-17 00:00
Modified
2022-01-05 00:02
Details
An issue was discovered in Suricata before 6.0.4. It is possible to bypass/evade any HTTP-based signature by faking an RST TCP packet with random TCP options of the md5header from the client side. After the three-way handshake, it's possible to inject an RST ACK with a random TCP md5header option. Then, the client can send an HTTP GET request with a forbidden URL. The server will ignore the RST ACK and send the response HTTP packet for the client's request. These packets will not trigger a Suricata reject action.
{ affected: [], aliases: [ "CVE-2021-45098", ], database_specific: { cwe_ids: [], github_reviewed: false, github_reviewed_at: null, nvd_published_at: "2021-12-16T05:15:00Z", severity: "HIGH", }, details: "An issue was discovered in Suricata before 6.0.4. It is possible to bypass/evade any HTTP-based signature by faking an RST TCP packet with random TCP options of the md5header from the client side. After the three-way handshake, it's possible to inject an RST ACK with a random TCP md5header option. Then, the client can send an HTTP GET request with a forbidden URL. The server will ignore the RST ACK and send the response HTTP packet for the client's request. These packets will not trigger a Suricata reject action.", id: "GHSA-cfcf-x7x2-gpf8", modified: "2022-01-05T00:02:11Z", published: "2021-12-17T00:00:32Z", references: [ { type: "ADVISORY", url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-45098", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://github.com/OISF/suricata/commit/50e2b973eeec7172991bf8f544ab06fb782b97df", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://forum.suricata.io/t/suricata-6-0-4-and-5-0-8-released/1942", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://github.com/OISF/suricata/releases", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4710", }, ], schema_version: "1.4.0", severity: [], }
Log in or create an account to share your comment.
Security Advisory comment format.
This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.