GHSA-8XJW-MV36-C7HQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:42 – Updated: 2024-03-21 03:33
VLAI
Details

** DISPUTED ** The default configuration of Microsoft Windows 7 immediately prefers a new IPv6 and DHCPv6 service over a currently used IPv4 and DHCPv4 service upon receipt of an IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA), and does not provide an option to ignore an unexpected RA, which allows remote attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks on communication with external IPv4 servers via vectors involving RAs, a DHCPv6 server, and NAT-PT on the local network, aka a "SLAAC Attack." NOTE: it can be argued that preferring IPv6 complies with RFC 3484, and that attempting to determine the legitimacy of an RA is currently outside the scope of recommended behavior of host operating systems.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2011-1652"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2011-04-06T17:55:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "** DISPUTED ** The default configuration of Microsoft Windows 7 immediately prefers a new IPv6 and DHCPv6 service over a currently used IPv4 and DHCPv4 service upon receipt of an IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA), and does not provide an option to ignore an unexpected RA, which allows remote attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks on communication with external IPv4 servers via vectors involving RAs, a DHCPv6 server, and NAT-PT on the local network, aka a \"SLAAC Attack.\" NOTE: it can be argued that preferring IPv6 complies with RFC 3484, and that attempting to determine the legitimacy of an RA is currently outside the scope of recommended behavior of host operating systems.",
  "id": "GHSA-8xjw-mv36-c7hq",
  "modified": "2024-03-21T03:33:03Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T05:42:20Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-1652"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.immunityinc.com/pipermail/dailydave/20110404/000122.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/slaac-attack"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

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.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…