A vulnerability in the OSPF Version 2 (OSPFv2) implementation of Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an affected device to reload, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to incomplete input validation when the affected software processes certain OSPFv2 packets with Link-Local Signaling (LLS) data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malformed OSPFv2 packet to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause an affected device to reload, resulting in a DoS condition.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adaptive_security_appliance | Cisco | * | 9.6 (excluding) |
| Firepower_threat_defense | Cisco | * | 6.3.0.6 (excluding) |
| Firepower_threat_defense | Cisco | 6.4.0 (including) | 6.4.0.10 (excluding) |
| Firepower_threat_defense | Cisco | 6.5.0 (including) | 6.5.0.5 (excluding) |
| Firepower_threat_defense | Cisco | 6.6.0 (including) | 6.6.1 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.8.0 (including) | 9.8.4.26 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.9.0 (including) | 9.9.2.80 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.10.0 (including) | 9.10.1.44 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.12.0 (including) | 9.12.4.4 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.13.0 (including) | 9.13.1.13 (excluding) |
| Adaptive_security_appliance_software | Cisco | 9.14.0 (including) | 9.14.1.19 (excluding) |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.