Vulnerability-Lookup

GSD-2016-10142

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:21

Details

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.

Aliases

CVE-2016-10142

Aliases

CVE-2016-10142

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2016-10142",
    "description": "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.",
    "id": "GSD-2016-10142",
    "references": [
      "https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-10142.html",
      "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:0817",
      "https://linux.oracle.com/cve/CVE-2016-10142.html"
    ]
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2016-10142"
      ],
      "details": "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.",
      "id": "GSD-2016-10142",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:21:26.807558Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2016-10142",
        "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": "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."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
          },
          {
            "name": "95797",
            "refsource": "BID",
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
          },
          {
            "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
            "refsource": "REDHAT",
            "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
          },
          {
            "name": "1038256",
            "refsource": "SECTRACK",
            "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:ietf:ipv6:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2016-10142"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "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."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-17"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
            },
            {
              "name": "95797",
              "refsource": "BID",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
            },
            {
              "name": "1038256",
              "refsource": "SECTRACK",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
            },
            {
              "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
              "refsource": "REDHAT",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "LOW",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "NONE",
            "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "baseScore": 5.0,
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
          "impactScore": 2.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 8.6,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "CHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
            "version": "3.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
          "impactScore": 4.0
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2018-05-11T01:29Z",
      "publishedDate": "2017-01-14T07:59Z"
    }
  }
}

CVE-2016-10142 (GCVE-0-2016-10142)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2017-01-14 06:56 – Updated: 2024-08-06 03:14

Summary

Severity

No CVSS data available.

CWE

Assigner

mitre CNA under the mitre root

CNA scorecard E 28/100 over 2262 records in the last 180 days details

References

7 references

URL	Tags
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-depre…	x_refsource_MISC
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021	x_refsource_MISC
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797	vdb-entryx_refsource_BID
https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Securit…	x_refsource_CONFIRM
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html	vendor-advisoryx_refsource_REDHAT
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256	vdb-entryx_refsource_SECTRACK
https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_…	x_refsource_CONFIRM

Date Public

2017-01-14 00:00

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-06T03:14:42.262Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
          },
          {
            "name": "95797",
            "tags": [
              "vdb-entry",
              "x_refsource_BID",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
          },
          {
            "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
            "tags": [
              "vendor-advisory",
              "x_refsource_REDHAT",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
          },
          {
            "name": "1038256",
            "tags": [
              "vdb-entry",
              "x_refsource_SECTRACK",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2017-01-14T00:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "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."
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2019-10-09T19:06:21.000Z",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
        },
        {
          "name": "95797",
          "tags": [
            "vdb-entry",
            "x_refsource_BID"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
        },
        {
          "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory",
            "x_refsource_REDHAT"
          ],
          "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
        },
        {
          "name": "1038256",
          "tags": [
            "vdb-entry",
            "x_refsource_SECTRACK"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp%3Butm_medium=RSS"
        }
      ],
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2016-10142",
          "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": "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."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "n/a"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8021"
            },
            {
              "name": "95797",
              "refsource": "BID",
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95797"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA43730"
            },
            {
              "name": "RHSA-2017:0817",
              "refsource": "REDHAT",
              "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0817.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "1038256",
              "refsource": "SECTRACK",
              "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038256"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K57211290?utm_source=f5support\u0026amp;utm_medium=RSS"
            }
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2016-10142",
    "datePublished": "2017-01-14T06:56:00.000Z",
    "dateReserved": "2017-01-14T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-08-06T03:14:42.262Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}

Sightings

Author	Source	Type	Date	Other

Nomenclature

Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

Order JSON

How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Publication & reservation Sightings KEV catalogs Other timestamps

Loading timeline…

The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base model, served locally by ML-Gateway. They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.

Action not permitted