mirror of
https://github.com/OMGeeky/advisory-db.git
synced 2026-02-23 15:38:27 +01:00
nats MitM vulnerability (#1665)
* nats MitM vulnerability * Suggest switching to `async-nats`
This commit is contained in:
40
nats/RUSTSEC-0000-0000.md
Normal file
40
nats/RUSTSEC-0000-0000.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
```toml
|
||||
[advisory]
|
||||
id = "RUSTSEC-0000-0000"
|
||||
package = "nats"
|
||||
date = "2023-03-24"
|
||||
categories = ["crypto-failure"]
|
||||
keywords = ["tls", "mitm"]
|
||||
|
||||
[versions]
|
||||
unaffected = ["< 0.9.0"]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
# TLS certificate common name validation bypass
|
||||
|
||||
The NATS official Rust clients are vulnerable to MitM when using TLS.
|
||||
|
||||
A fix for the `nats` crate hasn't been released yet. Since the `nats` crate
|
||||
is going to be deprecated anyway, consider switching to `async-nats` `>= 0.29`
|
||||
which already fixed this vulnerability.
|
||||
|
||||
The common name of the server's TLS certificate is validated against
|
||||
the `host`name provided by the server's plaintext `INFO` message
|
||||
during the initial connection setup phase. A MitM proxy can tamper with
|
||||
the `host` field's value by substituting it with the common name of a
|
||||
valid certificate it controls, fooling the client into accepting it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reproduction steps
|
||||
|
||||
1. The NATS Rust client tries to establish a new connection
|
||||
2. The connection is intercepted by a MitM proxy
|
||||
3. The proxy makes a separate connection to the NATS server
|
||||
4. The NATS server replies with an `INFO` message
|
||||
5. The proxy reads the `INFO`, alters the `host` JSON field and passes
|
||||
the tampered `INFO` back to the client
|
||||
6. The proxy upgrades the client connection to TLS, presenting a certificate issued
|
||||
by a certificate authority present in the client's keychain.
|
||||
In the previous step the `host` was set to the common name of said certificate
|
||||
7. `rustls` accepts the certificate, having verified that the common name matches the
|
||||
attacker-controlled value it was given
|
||||
9. The client has been fooled by the MitM proxy into accepting the attacker-controlled certificate
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user