In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions
Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684,
but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some
combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that
would be present twice, but with different attributes.
The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output
side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a
small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks
this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules:
Which options can be used together?
X: mutually exclusive
O: often used together
C: can be used together in some cases
P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations)
| Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| MPC |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| MPJ | X |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| DSS | X | X |------|------|------|------|------|------|
| ADD | X | X | P |------|------|------|------|------|
| RM | C | C | C | P |------|------|------|------|
| PRIO | X | C | C | C | C |------|------|------|
| FAIL | X | X | C | X | X | X |------|------|
| FC | X | X | P | X | X | X | X |------|
| RST | X | X | X | X | X | X | O | O |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
The only difference is with the 'P': another stack could send and
ADD_ADDR with other suboptions (DSS, RM_ADDR), and this should be
allowed.
A few points of attention:
- In theory, an MP_CAPABLE could be used with a RM_ADDR, but there is
no reason to add it with a SYN. Note that even with a 4th ACK, it
doesn't seem to be useful, except when IDs are known in advance via
another channel. Better not to break that.
- Now, combining both an MP_CAPABLE and an MP_JOIN will no longer
result to a reject of the two options, but only the second suboption
is ignored. That seems OK to do that for this unexpected error. At
least now all inconsistent combinations are handled the same way.
This could change later in next. This also means the explicit checks
for having both MPC + MPJ in subflow.c will now be unreachable.
That's fine, they will be removed in a follow-up patch.
- In case of conflicting combinations, the extra suboption(s) is/are
ignored: having such combinations either means the remote peer is
buggy, or is evil. The simplest action is then taken in this case:
stop processing the current suboption.
- In mp_opt->suboptions, there is also a bit reserved to the checksum,
which can be used in an MP_CAPABLE and a DSS. Each time a DSS option
can be used in parallel with another option, the checksum can be set,
so the verification is combined into a new OPTIONS_MPTCP_DSS macro.
- An MP_CAPABLE ACK can carry a Data-Level Length, and an optional
Checksum: they are the same as the ones found in a DSS, because a DSS
cannot be used in parallel to an MP_CAPABLE. Similarly, even if there
is room, a DSS cannot be used with an MP_JOIN.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it