gsd-2015-1571
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:20
Details
** DISPUTED ** The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers' installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key. NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says "The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack."
Aliases
Aliases



{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2015-1571",
    "description": "** DISPUTED ** The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers\u0027 installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key.  NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says \"The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack.\"",
    "id": "GSD-2015-1571"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2015-1571"
      ],
      "details": "** DISPUTED ** The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers\u0027 installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key.  NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says \"The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack.\"",
      "id": "GSD-2015-1571",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:20:05.229108Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2015-1571",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "n/a",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "n/a"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "** DISPUTED ** The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers\u0027 installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key.  NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says \"The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack.\""
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "20150129 Fortinet FortiOS Multiple Vulnerabilities",
            "refsource": "FULLDISC",
            "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Jan/125"
          },
          {
            "name": "http://www.security-assessment.com/files/documents/advisory/Fortinet_FortiOS_Multiple_Vulnerabilities.pdf",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "http://www.security-assessment.com/files/documents/advisory/Fortinet_FortiOS_Multiple_Vulnerabilities.pdf"
          },
          {
            "name": "http://www.fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-15-002/",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "http://www.fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-15-002/"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "cve": {
        "configurations": [
          {
            "nodes": [
              {
                "cpeMatch": [
                  {
                    "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:5.0.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                    "matchCriteriaId": "823C8357-E638-4EAE-B231-3B60263FFE52",
                    "vulnerable": true
                  }
                ],
                "negate": false,
                "operator": "OR"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "descriptions": [
          {
            "lang": "en",
            "value": "The CAPWAP DTLS protocol implementation in Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 uses the same certificate and private key across different customers\u0027 installations, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers by leveraging the Fortinet_Factory certificate and private key.  NOTE: FG-IR-15-002 says \"The Fortinet_Factory certificate is unique to each device ... An attacker cannot therefore stage a MitM attack."
          },
          {
            "lang": "es",
            "value": "** DISPUTADA ** La implementaci\u00f3n del protocolo CAPWAP DTLS en Fortinet FortiOS 5.0 Patch 7 build 4457 utiliza el mismo certificado y clave privada a trav\u00e9s de las distintas instalaciones de los clientes, lo que hace que sea m\u00e1s f\u00e1cil para atacantes man-in-the-middle suplantar servidores SSL aprovechando la clave privada y certificado Fortinet_Factory. NOTA: FG-IR-15-002 dice \"El certificado Fortinet_Factory es \u00fanico para cada dispositivo ... Un atacante no puede por tanto perpetrar un ataque MitM\"."
          }
        ],
        "id": "CVE-2015-1571",
        "lastModified": "2024-04-11T00:53:16.470",
        "metrics": {
          "cvssMetricV2": [
            {
              "acInsufInfo": false,
              "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
              "cvssData": {
                "accessComplexity": "MEDIUM",
                "accessVector": "NETWORK",
                "authentication": "NONE",
                "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
                "baseScore": 4.3,
                "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
                "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
                "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N",
                "version": "2.0"
              },
              "exploitabilityScore": 8.6,
              "impactScore": 2.9,
              "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
              "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
              "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
              "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
              "type": "Primary",
              "userInteractionRequired": true
            }
          ]
        },
        "published": "2015-02-10T20:59:06.263",
        "references": [
          {
            "source": "cve@mitre.org",
            "tags": [
              "Exploit"
            ],
            "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Jan/125"
          },
          {
            "source": "cve@mitre.org",
            "tags": [
              "Vendor Advisory"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-15-002/"
          },
          {
            "source": "cve@mitre.org",
            "tags": [
              "Exploit"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.security-assessment.com/files/documents/advisory/Fortinet_FortiOS_Multiple_Vulnerabilities.pdf"
          }
        ],
        "sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
        "vulnStatus": "Modified",
        "weaknesses": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "en",
                "value": "CWE-310"
              }
            ],
            "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
            "type": "Primary"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


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.