CVE-2024-56128 (GCVE-0-2024-56128)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2024-12-18 13:38 – Updated: 2024-12-18 17:02
VLAI
Title
Apache Kafka: SCRAM authentication vulnerable to replay attacks when used without encryption
Summary
Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka's SCRAM implementation. Issue Summary: Apache Kafka's implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1]. Specifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message. However, Kafka's SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation. Impact: This vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly discouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3]. Deployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue. How to Detect If You Are Impacted: If your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted. To check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted. Fix Details: The issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802. Affected Versions: Apache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below. Fixed Versions: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Users are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue. Recommendations for Mitigation: Users unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by: - Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication: Always deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception. - Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms: Evaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.
Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
SSVC
Exploitation: none Automatable: no Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
  • CWE-303 - Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
Apache Software Foundation Apache Kafka Affected: 0.10.2.0 , < 3.7.2 (semver)
Affected: 3.8.0 (semver)
Create a notification for this product.
Credits
Tim Fox (timvolpe@gmail.com) Vikas Singh <vikas@confluent.io>
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
              "baseScore": 5.3,
              "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
              "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
              "integrityImpact": "NONE",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2024-56128",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2024-12-18T16:15:35.208336Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-12-18T16:19:50.073Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      },
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-12-18T17:02:47.926Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/12/18/3"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "Apache Kafka",
          "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "3.7.2",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0.10.2.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.8.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Tim Fox (timvolpe@gmail.com)"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Vikas Singh \u003cvikas@confluent.io\u003e"
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cp\u003eIncorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIssue Summary:\u003cbr\u003eApache Kafka\u0027s implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1].\u003cbr\u003eSpecifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message.\u003cbr\u003eHowever, Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact:\u003cbr\u003eThis vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly\u003cbr\u003ediscouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3].\u003cbr\u003eDeployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue.\u003c/p\u003eHow to Detect If You Are Impacted:\u003cbr\u003eIf your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted.\u003cbr\u003eTo check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eFix Details:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eThe issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eAffected Versions:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eApache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eFixed Versions:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003e3.9.0\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003e3.8.1\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003e3.7.2\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eUsers are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eRecommendations for Mitigation:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eUsers unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003e- Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eAlways deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003e- Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: var(--wht);\"\u003eEvaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation.\n\nIssue Summary:\nApache Kafka\u0027s implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1].\nSpecifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message.\nHowever, Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation.\n\nImpact:\nThis vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly\ndiscouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3].\nDeployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue.\n\nHow to Detect If You Are Impacted:\nIf your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted.\nTo check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted.\n\nFix Details:\nThe issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802.\n\nAffected Versions:\nApache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below.\n\nFixed Versions:\n3.9.0\n3.8.1\n3.7.2\n\nUsers are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue.\n\nRecommendations for Mitigation:\nUsers unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by:\n- Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication:\nAlways deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception.\n- Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms:\nEvaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "low"
            },
            "type": "Textual description of severity"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-303",
              "description": "CWE-303 Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2024-12-18T13:38:03.068Z",
        "orgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
        "shortName": "apache"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "related"
          ],
          "url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "related"
          ],
          "url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802#section-9"
        },
        {
          "url": "https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#security_sasl_scram_security"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/84dh4so32lwn7wr6c5s9mwh381vx9wkw"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
      },
      "title": "Apache Kafka: SCRAM authentication vulnerable to replay attacks when used without encryption",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09",
    "assignerShortName": "apache",
    "cveId": "CVE-2024-56128",
    "datePublished": "2024-12-18T13:38:03.068Z",
    "dateReserved": "2024-12-16T14:52:48.326Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-12-18T17:02:47.926Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "epss": {
      "cve": "CVE-2024-56128",
      "date": "2026-06-04",
      "epss": "0.00528",
      "percentile": "0.67487"
    },
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2024-56128\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"security@apache.org\",\"published\":\"2024-12-18T14:15:23.277\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-06-20T18:13:13.550\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Analyzed\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation.\\n\\nIssue Summary:\\nApache Kafka\u0027s implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1].\\nSpecifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message.\\nHowever, Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation.\\n\\nImpact:\\nThis vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly\\ndiscouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3].\\nDeployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue.\\n\\nHow to Detect If You Are Impacted:\\nIf your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted.\\nTo check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted.\\n\\nFix Details:\\nThe issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802.\\n\\nAffected Versions:\\nApache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below.\\n\\nFixed Versions:\\n3.9.0\\n3.8.1\\n3.7.2\\n\\nUsers are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue.\\n\\nRecommendations for Mitigation:\\nUsers unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by:\\n- Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication:\\nAlways deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception.\\n- Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms:\\nEvaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"Implementaci\u00f3n incorrecta del algoritmo de autenticaci\u00f3n en la implementaci\u00f3n SCRAM de Apache Kafka. Resumen del problema: La implementaci\u00f3n de Apache Kafka del mecanismo de autenticaci\u00f3n de respuesta a desaf\u00edo con sal (SCRAM) no se adhiri\u00f3 completamente a los requisitos de RFC 5802 [1]. Espec\u00edficamente, seg\u00fan RFC 5802, el servidor debe verificar que el nonce enviado por el cliente en el segundo mensaje coincida con el nonce enviado por el servidor en su primer mensaje. Sin embargo, la implementaci\u00f3n SCRAM de Kafka no realiz\u00f3 esta validaci\u00f3n. Impacto: Esta vulnerabilidad es explotable solo cuando un atacante tiene acceso de texto simple al intercambio de autenticaci\u00f3n SCRAM. Sin embargo, el uso de SCRAM sobre texto simple se desaconseja enf\u00e1ticamente ya que se considera una pr\u00e1ctica insegura [2]. Apache Kafka recomienda implementar SCRAM exclusivamente con cifrado TLS para proteger los intercambios SCRAM de la intercepci\u00f3n [3]. Las implementaciones que utilizan SCRAM con TLS no se ven afectadas por este problema. C\u00f3mo detectar si est\u00e1 afectado: si su implementaci\u00f3n utiliza autenticaci\u00f3n SCRAM sobre canales de comunicaci\u00f3n de texto plano (sin cifrado TLS), es probable que est\u00e9 afectado. Para verificar si TLS est\u00e1 habilitado, revise su archivo de configuraci\u00f3n server.properties para la propiedad listeners. Si tiene SASL_PLAINTEXT en los listeners, es probable que est\u00e9 afectado. Detalles de la soluci\u00f3n: el problema se ha solucionado introduciendo la verificaci\u00f3n de nonce en el mensaje final del intercambio de autenticaci\u00f3n SCRAM para garantizar el cumplimiento de RFC 5802. Versiones afectadas: Apache Kafka versiones 0.10.2.0 a 3.9.0, excluidas las versiones corregidas a continuaci\u00f3n. Versiones corregidas: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Se recomienda a los usuarios que actualicen a 3.7.2 o posterior para mitigar este problema. Recomendaciones para la mitigaci\u00f3n: los usuarios que no puedan actualizar a las versiones corregidas pueden mitigar el problema mediante lo siguiente: - Uso de TLS con autenticaci\u00f3n SCRAM: siempre implemente SCRAM sobre TLS para cifrar los intercambios de autenticaci\u00f3n y protegerse contra la interceptaci\u00f3n. - Consideraci\u00f3n de mecanismos de autenticaci\u00f3n alternativos: evaluar mecanismos de autenticaci\u00f3n alternativos, como PLAIN, Kerberos u OAuth con TLS, que proporcionan capas adicionales de seguridad.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N\",\"baseScore\":5.3,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"integrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"NONE\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":3.9,\"impactScore\":1.4}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"security@apache.org\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-303\"}]},{\"source\":\"nvd@nist.gov\",\"type\":\"Primary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"NVD-CWE-Other\"}]}],\"configurations\":[{\"nodes\":[{\"operator\":\"OR\",\"negate\":false,\"cpeMatch\":[{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:apache:kafka:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"versionStartIncluding\":\"0.10.2.0\",\"versionEndExcluding\":\"3.7.2\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"7358B30A-00B4-4357-9A54-A169438B685D\"},{\"vulnerable\":true,\"criteria\":\"cpe:2.3:a:apache:kafka:3.8.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\",\"matchCriteriaId\":\"EF7C474D-9CB2-441B-9B30-782031AC1576\"}]}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802\",\"source\":\"security@apache.org\",\"tags\":[\"Technical Description\"]},{\"url\":\"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802#section-9\",\"source\":\"security@apache.org\",\"tags\":[\"Technical Description\"]},{\"url\":\"https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#security_sasl_scram_security\",\"source\":\"security@apache.org\",\"tags\":[\"Product\"]},{\"url\":\"https://lists.apache.org/thread/84dh4so32lwn7wr6c5s9mwh381vx9wkw\",\"source\":\"security@apache.org\",\"tags\":[\"Mailing List\",\"Vendor Advisory\"]},{\"url\":\"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/12/18/3\",\"source\":\"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\",\"tags\":[\"Mailing List\",\"Third Party Advisory\"]}]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CVE Program Container\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/12/18/3\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\", \"shortName\": \"CVE\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-18T17:02:47.926Z\"}}, {\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 5.3, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N\", \"integrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"LOW\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2024-56128\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2024-12-18T16:15:35.208336Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-18T16:15:44.224Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"Apache Kafka: SCRAM authentication vulnerable to replay attacks when used without encryption\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"EXTERNAL\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Tim Fox (timvolpe@gmail.com)\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Vikas Singh \u003cvikas@confluent.io\u003e\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"Textual description of severity\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"low\"}}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"Apache Software Foundation\", \"product\": \"Apache Kafka\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"0.10.2.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.7.2\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.8.0\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802\", \"tags\": [\"related\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802#section-9\", \"tags\": [\"related\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#security_sasl_scram_security\"}, {\"url\": \"https://lists.apache.org/thread/84dh4so32lwn7wr6c5s9mwh381vx9wkw\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation.\\n\\nIssue Summary:\\nApache Kafka\u0027s implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1].\\nSpecifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message.\\nHowever, Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation.\\n\\nImpact:\\nThis vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly\\ndiscouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3].\\nDeployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue.\\n\\nHow to Detect If You Are Impacted:\\nIf your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted.\\nTo check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted.\\n\\nFix Details:\\nThe issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802.\\n\\nAffected Versions:\\nApache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below.\\n\\nFixed Versions:\\n3.9.0\\n3.8.1\\n3.7.2\\n\\nUsers are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue.\\n\\nRecommendations for Mitigation:\\nUsers unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by:\\n- Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication:\\nAlways deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception.\\n- Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms:\\nEvaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cp\u003eIncorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIssue Summary:\u003cbr\u003eApache Kafka\u0027s implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1].\u003cbr\u003eSpecifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message.\u003cbr\u003eHowever, Kafka\u0027s SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact:\u003cbr\u003eThis vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly\u003cbr\u003ediscouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3].\u003cbr\u003eDeployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue.\u003c/p\u003eHow to Detect If You Are Impacted:\u003cbr\u003eIf your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted.\u003cbr\u003eTo check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eFix Details:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eThe issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eAffected Versions:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eApache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eFixed Versions:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003e3.9.0\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003e3.8.1\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003e3.7.2\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eUsers are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eRecommendations for Mitigation:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eUsers unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003e- Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eAlways deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003e- Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\\\"background-color: var(--wht);\\\"\u003eEvaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-303\", \"description\": \"CWE-303 Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"shortName\": \"apache\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-18T13:38:03.068Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2024-56128\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2024-12-18T17:02:47.926Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2024-12-16T14:52:48.326Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"f0158376-9dc2-43b6-827c-5f631a4d8d09\", \"datePublished\": \"2024-12-18T13:38:03.068Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"apache\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.1"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

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.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.