CVE-2020-13529

aka Free Key/Forcing a FORCERENEW

CVE: CVE-2020-13529
CWE: 290
ipc:
  note: none of the code involded has to do with IPC
  answer: false
  question: |
    Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
    communication? IPC includes OS signals, pipes, stdin/stdout, message
    passing, and clipboard. Writing to files that another program in this
    software system reads is another form of IPC.

    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
bugs:
- https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/16774
i18n:
  note: none of the code involved has to do with internationalization
  answer: false
  question: |
    Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
    (i18n)?

    An internationalization feature is one that enables people from all
    over the world to use the system. This includes translations, locales,
    typography, unicode, or various other features.

    Answer should be true or false
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
vccs:
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 5f404b1e680cdac9f8149e73296d1d89044af773
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 9fbc25232c123aac886b5327418b7254a48ea3dc
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 8c00042c939938818365753023ff2d50f984dec6
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: e5002702716b047c3d5515aaeecc5b829db02aa4
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 3e3d8f7857a7a59d62cc5bd1e4e792dc4d0f40b3
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: aba26854e5d47e36fd78a263b271d727d308f0dd
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 5ee482dfd395b2576605bd18cda7d19abdb0487a
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: a6cc569e33a05b07550c6c7b4d67d83d868f8bc1
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 97b9372db178baadb121634fb4ae12bda8969cfe
- note: Discovered automatically by archeogit.
  commit: 022446adf99b84c59a88c2e614033ccde13c395c
fixes:
- note: A specially crafted DHCP FORCERENEW packet can cause a server running the
    DHCP client to be vulnerable to a DHCP ACK spoofing attack. An attacker can forge
    a pair of FORCERENEW and DCHP ACK packets to reconfigure the server.
  commit: 615c1467c81411bf1d19fd7092e8995b5ebadc13
vouch:
  note: In all of the dissucsions, there is no notice of anyone vouching for someone
    else.
  answer: false
  question: |
    Was there any part of the fix that involved one person vouching for
    another's work?

    This can include:
      * signing off on a commit message
      * mentioning a discussion with a colleague checking the work
      * upvoting a solution on a pull request

    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of what your answer was.
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?

    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.

    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.

    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews: []
sandbox:
  note: The vulnerability allows outside users to access the base system and manipulate
    it
  answer: true
  question: |
    Did this vulnerability violate a sandboxing feature that the system
    provides?

    A sandboxing feature is one that allows files, users, or other features
    limited access. Vulnerabilities that violate sandboxes are usually based on
    access control, checking privileges incorrectly, path traversal, and the
    like.

    Answer should be true or false
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
upvotes: 
CWE_note: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
mistakes:
  answer: It appears as though that the only thing that could be classified as a mistake
    is using the DHCP protocol, as during discussion after the vulnerability was brought
    to their attention, the developers came to the conclusion that so long as that
    protocol is in use, the vulnerability will always exist. And given the difficulty
    of the issue, they could not find any easy fix within a reasonable amount of time
    without having to do extra research on the issue.
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?

    There can, and usually are, many mistakes behind a vulnerability.

    Remember that mistakes can come in many forms:
    * slip: failing to complete a properly planned step due to inattention
              e.g. wrong key in the ignition
              e.g. using < instead of <=
    * lapse: failing to complete a properly planned step due to memory failure
              e.g. forgetting to put car in reverse before backing up
              e.g. forgetting to check null
    * planning error: error that occurs when the plan is inadequate
              e.g. getting stuck in traffic because you didn’t consider the
                   impact of the bridge closing
              e.g. calling the wrong method
              e.g. using a poor design

    These are grey areas, of course. But do your best to analyze the mistakes
    according to this framework.

    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?

    Write a thoughtful entry here that people in the software engineering
    industry would find interesting.
nickname: Free Key/Forcing a FORCERENEW
subsystem:
  name: libsystemd-network
  note: libsystemd-network is the affected subsystem due to the fact that the code
    which causes the vaulnerability is found within the file sd-dhcp-client.c, which
    is within the libsystemd-network subsystem folder.
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in? These are subsystems WITHIN systemd

    Two areas to look:
      - Bug labels
      - Directory names

    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged.

    Example systemd subsystems are:
      * fsck
      * apparmor
      * fstab
      * sd-daemon

    Name should be:
      * all lowercase English letters
      * NOT a specific file
      * can have digits, and _-@/

    Can be multiple subsystems involved, in which case you can make it an array
    e.g.
        name: ["subsystemA", "subsystemB"] # ok
        name: subsystemA # also ok
discovered:
  answer: Issue was first reported via email to systemd-security at redhat.com, and
    the relayed to development team by CiscoTalos
  contest: false
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?

    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.

    The automated, contest, and developer flags can be true, false, or nil.

    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please
    explain where you looked.
  automated: false
  developer: false
discussion:
  note: There was discussion as to which protocol should be used during the fix, either
    DHCP or RFC, and determined that the issue was the DHCP that was already in place.
    They then found RFC6704 as a potential mitigation. The discussion was part of
    this pull request; https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/16774, specifically
    a message from yuwata on Apr 30 (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/16774#issuecomment-830053418)
  question: |
    Was there any discussion surrounding this?

    A discussion can include debates, disputes, or polite talk about how to
    resolve uncertainty.

    Example include:
      * Is this out of our scope?
      * Is this a security?
      * How should we fix this?

    Just because you see multiple comments doesn't mean it's a discussion.
    For example:
      * "Fix line 10". "Ok" is not what we call a discussion
      * "Ping" (reminding people)

    Check the bugs reports, pull requests, and mailing lists archives.

    These answers should be boolean.
      discussed_as_security: true or false
      any_discussion: true or false

    Put any links to disagreements you found in the notes section, or any other
    comment you want to make.
  any_discussion: true
  discussed_as_security: true
stacktrace:
  note: There are no stacktraces present in the bug reposts on either GitHub or RedHat
  question: |
    Are there any stacktraces in the bug reports?

    Secondly, if there is a stacktrace, is the fix in the same file that the
    stacktrace points to?

    If there are no stacktraces, then both of these are false - but be sure to
    mention where you checked in the note.

    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
  any_stacktraces: false
  stacktrace_with_fix: false
description: An exploitable denial-of-service vulnerability exists in Systemd 245.
  A specially crafted IP renewal packet can cause a server running the client to be
  vulnerable to a IP address allocation/lease spoofing attack. An attacker can forge
  a pair of renweal and allocation/lease packets to reconfigure the server.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?

    For code: and fix: - your answer should be boolean.

    For the code_answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix in related directories and determine if and was there were
    unit tests involved for this subsystem.

    For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
  fix_answer: false
  code_answer: true
reported_date: 
specification:
  note: There is no mention of a specification violation in any comment thread or
    bug report
  answer: false
  instructions: |
    Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example, the POSIX
    spec, an RFC spec, a network protocol spec, or some other requirements
    specification.

    Be sure to check the following artifacts for this:
      * bug reports
      * security advisories
      * commit message
      * pull request
      * mailing lists
      * anything else

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
announced_date: '2020-08-19'
curation_level: 1
published_date: '2021-04-26'
forgotten_check:
  note: Since the block of code was changed to being ignored, no proper fix has been
    released
  answer: false
  question: |
    Does the fix for the vulnerability involve adding a forgotten check?

    A "forgotten check" can mean many things. It often manifests as the fix
    inserting an entire if-statement or a conditional to an existing
    if-statement. Or a call to a method that checks something.

    Example of checks can include:
      * null pointer checks
      * check the current role, e.g. root
      * boundary checks for a number
      * consult file permissions
      * check a return value

    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
  entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
  https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/699.html for the Software Development
  view of the vulnerabilities. We also recommend the tool
  http://www.cwevis.org/viz to help see how the classifications work.

  If you have anything to note about why you classified it this way, write
  something in CWE_note. This field is optional.

  Just the number here is fine. No need for name or CWE prefix. If more than one
  apply here, then place them in an array like this
    CWE: ["123", "456"] # this is ok
    CWE: [123, 456]     # also ok
    CWE: 123            # also ok
autodiscoverable:
  note: The automated tool would have had to have had the capability to create its
    own packets and have them reconized as valid IPs.
  answer: false
  instructions: |
    Is it plausible that a fully automated tool could have discovered
    this? These are tools that require little knowledge of the domain,
     e.g. automatic static analysis, compiler warnings, fuzzers.

    Examples for true answers: SQL injection, XSS, buffer overflow

    In systemd, the actually use OZZ Fuzz. If there's a link to it, add it here.

    Examples for false: RFC violations, permissions issues, anything
    that requires the tool to be "aware" of the project's
    domain-specific requirements.

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
vcc_instructions: |
  The vulnerability-contributing commits.

  These are found by our tools by traversing the Git Blame history, where we
  determine which commit(s) introduced the functionality.

  Look up these VCC commits and verify that they are not simple refactorings,
  and that they are, in fact introducing the vulnerability into the system.
  Often, introducing the file or function is where the VCC is, but VCCs can be
  anything.

  Place any notes you would like to make in the notes field.
bugs_instructions: |
  What bugs and/or pull requests are involved in this vulnerability?

  For systemd, this is typically their GitHub issues, but could also include
  bugs from other databases. Put a URL instead of a single number.
yaml_instructions: |
  =================
  ===YAML Primer===
  =================
  This is a dictionary data structure, akin to JSON.
  Everything before a colon is a key, and the values here are usually strings
  For one-line strings, you can just use quotes after the colon
  For multi-line strings, as we do for our instructions, you put a | and then
  indent by two spaces

  For readability, we hard-wrap multi-line strings at 80 characters. This is
  not absolutely required, but appreciated.
fixes_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below.

  This must be a git commit hash from the systemd source repo, a  40-character
  hexademical string/

  Place any notes you would like to make in the notes field.
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  commits:
  - note: The current solution was to set the code so the block that causes the issue
      is completely ignored. This commit focuses on lines 1602 - 1608 of /src/libsystemd-network/sd-dhcp-client.c.
      The block of code in these lines is the source of the vulnerability. As stated
      in the in line comments from this commit, the call for the log_dhcp_client function
      is being passed a paramter that forces it to ignore FORCERENEW requests until
      a proper fix can be put in place.
    commit: 38e980a6a5a3442c2f48b1f827284388096d8ca5
  - note: 
    commit: 
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?

    Use this to specify any commits you think are notable in some way, and
    explain why in the note.
order_of_operations:
  note: Since the block of code was changed to being ignored, no proper fix has been
    released
  answer: false
  question: |
    Does the fix for the vulnerability involve correcting an order of
    operations?

    This means the fix involves moving code around or changing the order of
    how things are done.

    Answer must be true or false.
    Write a note about how you came to the conclusions you did, regardless of
    what your answer was.
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it.

  Set the version number that you were given in the instructions.

  This will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you
  fill everything out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work
  as finished unless curated is properly updated.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.

  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it.
  If the report mentions a nickname, use that.
  Must be under 30 characters. Optional.
reported_instructions: |
  What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
  security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that
  the CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.

  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date.

  This is not the same as published date in the NVD - that is below.

  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
published_instructions: |
  Is there a published fix or patch date for this vulnerability?
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.

  Rewrite this description IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.

  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove project-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to this project would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.

  Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
  security