CVE-2024-3596
CVE-2024-3596 — RADIUS Protocol under RFC2865 is vulnerable to forgery attacks.
RADIUS Protocol under RFC 2865 is susceptible to forgery attacks by a local attacker who can modify any valid Response (Access-Accept, Access-Reject, or Access-Challenge) to any other response using a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 Response Authenticator signature.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, certcc
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
15%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
9
CRITICAL
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Products (475)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | CVSS 3.1 | CRITICAL | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Indexed by
References
13 on the record
- datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2865
reference
- datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-deprecating-radius/
reference
- networkradius.com/assets/pdf/radius_and_md5_collisions.pdf
reference
- www.blastradius.fail/
reference
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/07/09/4
reference
- psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2024-0014
reference
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-794185.html
vendor-advisory
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-723487.html
vendor-advisory
Elsewhere on this site
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.