Filtered by vendor Opennetworking
Subscriptions
Total
63 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-65568 | 2 Omec-project, Opennetworking | 2 Upf, Upf | 2026-01-07 | 7.5 High |
| A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association, a PFCP Session Establishment Request that includes a CreateFAR with an empty or truncated IPv4 address field is not properly validated. During parsing, parseFAR() calls ip2int(), which performs an out-of-bounds read on the IPv4 address buffer and triggers an index-out-of-range panic. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services. | ||||
| CVE-2025-65567 | 2 Omec-project, Opennetworking | 2 Upf, Upf | 2026-01-07 | 7.5 High |
| A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association, a specially crafted PFCP Session Establishment Request with a CreatePDR that contains a malformed Flow-Description is not robustly validated. The Flow-Description parser (parseFlowDesc) can read beyond the bounds of the provided buffer, causing a panic and terminating the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF. | ||||
| CVE-2025-65565 | 2 Omec-project, Opennetworking | 2 Upf, Upf | 2026-01-07 | 7.5 High |
| A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association is established, a PFCP Session Establishment Request that is missing the mandatory F-SEID (CPF-SEID) Information Element is not properly validated. The session establishment handler calls IE.FSEID() on a nil pointer, which triggers a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services. | ||||
| CVE-2025-65564 | 2 Omec-project, Opennetworking | 2 Upf, Upf | 2026-01-07 | 7.5 High |
| A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-upf (upf-epc-pfcpiface) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Association Setup Request that is missing the mandatory Recovery Time Stamp Information Element, the association setup handler dereferences a nil pointer via IE.RecoveryTimeStamp() instead of validating the message. This results in a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Association Setup Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services. | ||||
| CVE-2025-65563 | 2 Omec-project, Opennetworking | 2 Upf, Upf | 2026-01-07 | 7.5 High |
| A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (component upf-epc/pfcpiface) up to at least version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Association Setup Request that is missing the mandatory NodeID Information Element, the association setup handler dereferences a nil pointer instead of validating the message, causing a panic and terminating the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Association Setup Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48809 | 2 Onosproject, Opennetworking | 3 Sdran-in-a-box, Onos-a1t, Sdran-in-a-box | 2025-12-31 | 7.5 High |
| An issue in Open Networking Foundations sdran-in-a-box v.1.4.3 and onos-a1t v.0.2.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the onos-a1t component of the sdran-in-a-box, specifically the DeleteWatcher function. | ||||
| CVE-2023-41591 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-06-03 | 9.8 Critical |
| An issue in Open Network Foundation ONOS v2.7.0 allows attackers to create fake IP/MAC addresses and potentially execute a man-in-the-middle attack on communications between fake and real hosts. | ||||
| CVE-2024-53423 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-06-03 | 5.6 Medium |
| An issue in Open Network Foundation ONOS v2.7.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via supplying crafted packets. | ||||
| CVE-2025-29310 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-04-01 | 9.8 Critical |
| An issue in onos v2.7.0 allows attackers to trigger a packet deserialization problem when supplying a crafted LLDP packet. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands or access network information. | ||||
| CVE-2025-29311 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-04-01 | 7.5 High |
| Limited secret space in LLDP packets used in onos v2.7.0 allows attackers to obtain the private key via a bruteforce attack. Attackers are able to leverage this vulnerability into creating crafted LLDP packets. | ||||
| CVE-2025-29312 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-04-01 | 9.1 Critical |
| An issue in onos v2.7.0 allows attackers to trigger unexpected behavior within a device connected to a legacy switch via changing the link type from indirect to direct. | ||||
| CVE-2023-24279 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-27 | 6.1 Medium |
| A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Open Networking Foundation ONOS from version v1.9.0 to v2.7.0 allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into the url parameter of the API documentation dashboard. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29944 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 5.3 Medium |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. There is an incorrect comparison of paths installed by intents. An existing intents does not redirect to a new path, even if a new intent that shares the path with higher priority is installed. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29609 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 5.3 Medium |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with the same source and destination shows the INSTALLING state, indicating that its flow rules are installing. Improper handling of such an intent is misleading to a network operator. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29608 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with a port that is an intermediate point of its path installs an invalid flow rule, causing a network loop. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29605 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. IntentManager attempts to install the IPv6 flow rules of an intent into an OpenFlow 1.0 switch that does not support IPv6. Improper handling of the difference in capabilities of the intent and switch is misleading to a network operator. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29604 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 9.8 Critical |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. An intent with an uppercase letter in a device ID shows the CORRUPT state, which is misleading to a network operator. Improper handling of case sensitivity causes inconsistency between intent and flow rules in the network. | ||||
| CVE-2022-24109 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 6.5 Medium |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. To attack an intent installed by a normal user, a remote attacker can install a duplicate intent with a different key, and then remove the duplicate one. This will remove the flow rules of the intent, even though the intent still exists in the controller. | ||||
| CVE-2022-24035 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. The purge-requested intent remains on the list, but it does not respond to changes in topology (e.g., link failure). In combination with other applications, it could lead to a failure of network management. | ||||
| CVE-2021-38364 | 1 Opennetworking | 1 Onos | 2025-02-05 | 6.5 Medium |
| An issue was discovered in ONOS 2.5.1. There is an incorrect comparison of flow rules installed by intents. A remote attacker can install or remove a new intent, and consequently modify or delete the existing flow rules related to other intents. | ||||