Uploaded image for project: 'RHEL'
  1. RHEL
  2. RHEL-46784

CVE-2024-3596 freeradius: forgery attack [rhel-10]

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Done
    • Icon: Undefined Undefined
    • rhel-10.0.beta
    • rhel-10.0.beta
    • freeradius
    • freeradius-3.2.5-1.el10
    • None
    • None
    • 1
    • rhel-sst-idm-ipa
    • ssg_idm
    • 20
    • 22
    • 5
    • False
    • Hide

      None

      Show
      None
    • Yes
    • 2024-Q3-Bravo-S2
    • CVE - Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    • Hide
      A vulnerability in the RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service) protocol allows attackers to forge authentication responses when the Message-Authenticator attribute is not enforced. This issue arises from a cryptographically insecure integrity check using MD5, enabling attackers to spoof UDP-based RADIUS response packets. This can result in unauthorized access by modifying an Access-Reject response to an Access-Accept response, thereby compromising the authentication process.
      Show
      A vulnerability in the RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service) protocol allows attackers to forge authentication responses when the Message-Authenticator attribute is not enforced. This issue arises from a cryptographically insecure integrity check using MD5, enabling attackers to spoof UDP-based RADIUS response packets. This can result in unauthorized access by modifying an Access-Reject response to an Access-Accept response, thereby compromising the authentication process.
    • Proposed
    • None

      Security Tracking Issue

      Flaw:


      forgery attack
      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263240

      Affected Vendor
      IETF
      Every vendor who implements a product supporting RADIUS

      Affected Product
      RFC 2865

      Affected Version
      RFC 2865

      Significant ICS/OT impact?
      no

      Reporter
      Nadia Heninger [nadiah@cs.ucsd.edu] University of California San Diego

      Vendor contacted?
      yes We have reached out to the IETF. This vulnerability will affect a large number of vendors and we have not reached out to any individual vendors yet.

      Description
      We have an efficient forgery attack against the Response Authenticator
      used to authenticate RADIUS server Access-Accept or Access-Reject
      messages. This is a protocol vulnerability against RFC 2865 and
      applies to RADIUS/UDP. It allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to
      forge a valid Access-Accept response to a client request that has been
      rejected by the RADIUS server, and gain access to the network
      resources and devices for which the RADIUS client may authorize users.

      The Response Authenticator is an MD5 hash of values from the RADIUS
      client request and server response together with a fixed shared secret
      (unknown to our attacker) that is shared between the RADIUS client and
      server. The first byte of an Access-Accept and Access-Reject message
      differ. The attacker executes a so-called chosen-prefix collision
      attack on MD5 to change the message type in the first byte and any
      relevant packet attributes while ensuring that the Access-Reject and
      forged Access-Accept both produce the same Response Authenticator.
      Once an MD5 chosen-prefix hash collision has been computed, any fixed
      value appended to the two messages will continue to produce an MD5
      hash collision. In particular, the attacker can compute a collision
      with known values such that when the client or server append the
      secret to compute the Response Authenticator, it will still produce
      the same hash value.

      Computing an MD5 chosen-prefix hash collision requires predicting the
      Access-Reject message and appending as few as 80 bytes of collision block
      gibberish to the Access-Request sent to the server. In our attack, the
      attacker encapsulates this collision-block gibberish in Proxy-State
      attributes that are required by the RFC to be returned by the server in
      its response and are hence also present in the Access-Reject produced
      by the server. These gibberish values ensure the Response Authenticator
      computed from the Access-Reject and will be a correct Response Authenticator
      for the forged Access-Accept.
      Exploit
      To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker needs man-in-the-middle
      network access between the RADIUS client and server, and the client
      and server must be using RADIUS/UDP to communicate. The attacker also
      needs to be able to trigger a RADIUS client Access-Request, by for
      example entering a username and (incorrect) password at a login prompt
      on a victim device. The simplest case is when the client is using PAP
      authentication.

      The attacker observes the Access-Request packet (in particular the
      random ID and Request Authenticator values included in the request)
      and predicts the attributes that will be returned in the Access-Reject
      response that is expected to be returned by the server.

      The attacker then computes an MD5 chosen-prefix collision online,
      before the client times out its request. With our computing power, we
      are currently able to compute such a collision in as little as 5 to 6
      minutes; we expect to continue to improve this, and a well-resourced
      attacker with the ability to implement this attack on FPGAs would
      certainly be able to improve this time to seconds.

      Once the attacker has computed the MD5 collision, the attacker inserts
      the corresponding collision blocks into one or more Proxy-State
      attributes in the request, and removes any Message-Authenticator
      attributes from the request. (This is allowed and undetectable when
      using PAP authentication.) The attacker sends this modified client
      request to the RADIUS server.

      The attacker then receives the expected Access-Reject response from
      the RADIUS server, and copies the Response Authenticator value from
      the Access-Reject to the colliding Access-Accept packet that it
      forges. This packet will include some Proxy-State attributes
      containing the collision block gibberish; we have verified that these
      attributes are accepted by clients.

      The attacker then forwards its modified Access-Accept response to the
      client, which should successfully let the attacker log in.

      We have attached a file poc.md showing logs and values with a sample colliding request.
      Impact
      An attacker gains access to any resource for which RADIUS is used for
      authentication/authorization. RADIUS/UDP appears to be commonly used
      within enterprise networks and organizations to provide admin access
      to routing infrastructure, user logins for VPNs, for Wi-Fi access via
      WPA-enterprise, and as a lightweight authentication mechanism for a
      variety of networked devices and hardware. RADIUS is supported by
      cloud authentication services like Duo and Okta as well.
      Discovery
      This vulnerability was discovered by Mike Milano, Sharon Goldberg,
      Nadia Heninger, Dan Shumow, Marc Stevens, Miro Haller, and Adam Suhl.
      We discovered it by reading the RFC, examining the behavior of the
      RADIUS client and server implementations we currently have access to
      (FreeRadius, Okta, a Cisco ASA 5505), and optimizing Marc Stevens's
      Hashclash MD5 collision software for our particular case.

      Has been exploited? no

      Is public? no

      Disclosure Plans? yes
      We plan to submit a paper to the Usenix Security conference. The paper will be confidential except to the program committee. The submission deadline is February 8 and the conference takes place August 14-16. We are fine with coordinating the public disclosure deadline with vendors.

      ~~~

              antorres@redhat.com Antonio Torres
              antorres@redhat.com Antonio Torres
              Antonio Torres Antonio Torres
              Michal Polovka Michal Polovka
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              7 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: