GHSA-FF8P-PFWC-WJF2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:04 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:04
VLAI
Details
On NXP MIFARE Ultralight and NTAG cards, an attacker can interrupt a write operation (aka conduct a "tear off" attack) over RFID to bypass a Monotonic Counter protection mechanism. The impact depends on how the anti tear-off feature is used in specific applications such as public transportation, physical access control, etc.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-33881"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-06T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "On NXP MIFARE Ultralight and NTAG cards, an attacker can interrupt a write operation (aka conduct a \"tear off\" attack) over RFID to bypass a Monotonic Counter protection mechanism. The impact depends on how the anti tear-off feature is used in specific applications such as public transportation, physical access control, etc.",
"id": "GHSA-ff8p-pfwc-wjf2",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:04:09Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:04:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.quarkslab.com/rfid-monotonic-counter-anti-tearing-defeated.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/application-note/AN11340.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/application-note/AN13089.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sstic.org/2021/presentation/eeprom_it_will_all_end_in_tears"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
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…
Loading…